Related
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...
I've been searching for a new phone and I'm considering possibly buying a Chinese phone. I know there are certain brands which can be trusted (Huawei, ZTE, Coolpad, Lenovo and a few others). The thing is that I want to know more about the chipsets that these phones use. So here's a few questions.
First, the two chipsets that I'm interested in are the MT6577 and the MSM8225 (S4 Play). How is the everyday user experience with both of these chipsets? I know that in general the MT6577 seems to be the better performer in terms of benchmarks being a Cortex A9 v. the Cotex A5 of the MSM8225. While I would like to do some gaming, I'm not really a hardcore gamer. But what's most important to me is the smoothness of everyday use. I'd like UI performance to be as fluid as possible and for apps to work well (again, not looking for anything out of this world, but steady). Also if anyone has had experience with more widely available chipsets from OMAP, Nvidia, or Snapdragon (especially the MSM8255, which I've had experience with) where would you place the performance of these two chipsets compared to those chipsets?
Second, is battery life performance. I know that the chipsets themselves aren't the only factor in battery life performance, but I'd like to know which one of the two is most efficient in general.
Also a couple of general questions.
I'm considering possibly getting a dual sim phone (well most of these phones seem to be dual sim). I was wondering if these phones have different [manufacturer specific] methods of managing the sims or if they are managed Android itself. I'm considering using the phone I get on a US pre-paid carrier (At&t/At&t MNVO) and what I'm thinking of doing is using the GSM slot for pay-as-you go minutes and text and the WCDMA slot for a daily use plan.
Also how's the call quality of these phones? The reviews on some of these phones that I've found seem to omit this. While I don't talk a ton, I would like to have a phone that sounds good and is easy to understand. I've taken calls at the place I work from cell phones that sound absolutely terrible lol. I don't want a phone that sounds bad.
There are a few other specs that I'm looking for in a phone (if you guys have any recommendations):
3.5 to 4.3 inch screen (maybe 4.5)
4GB ROM (I've heard that these phones also come with some manufacturer software that takes up a lot of storage in addition to Android itself)
5-8MP camera (not incredibly important. I know that MP aren't the only spec that makes for a good camera)
Price range is anywhere between $100-250. I might be interested in getting a Xiaomi phone as well, although I know that they are very hard to find and can be significantly out of my price range.
Hi, Black friday deals have started popping up in my country and I found a pretty good deal on the Oneplus one so I thought i'd buy one, but I have a few questions before I do:
1. I mostly do browsing, whatsapp and some gaming on my phone so I wanted to know if the experience on the oneplus One is buttery smooth in the things I listed. I currently have an Iphone 4s and I can't stand the little stutters, long loadings before opening apps and a lot of lags in internet browsing and in Whatsapp. My main reason for buying a new phone is a better general experience, so its really important for me that the OPO will be smooth.
I just saw reviews on the new Oneplus X which has the same processor as the oneplus One, and some of the reviews said that the Snapdragon 801 is really showing its age, so it got me a bit worried.
2. I saw that some people had issues with the touch on the Oneplus One. Are those issues resolved? And If not, should I worry about it?
3. For the people who play Hearthstone, does this phone handle Hearthstone well? I know that even phones with good processors have some troubles with Hearthstone so I want to know if the Oneplus one handles it well.
Thanks in advance!
I got mine in May this year and so far it has been running smoothly. Gaming and everyday tasks like the ones you listed posed no problems. The touchscreen issues have also been fixed over the last months. For the best experience you should try out some custom roms.
I hope I could help you
Bongofriend said:
I got mine in May this year and so far it has been running smoothly. Gaming and everyday tasks like the ones you listed posed no problems. The touchscreen issues have also been fixed over the last months. For the best experience you should try out some custom roms.
I hope I could help you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, happy to hear its been working smoothly for you. I heard there's a really good custom rom called Sultan CM12, but honestly im afraid to get into roms and stuff like that because I almost bricked my nexus 4 messing with roms, and I don't really wanna take risks with this one.
There are plenty of guides and tutorials online which explain step by step how to flash custom roms /recoveries. Even with the stock pre-installed CM you will surely get a great user experience
Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk
PriStol said:
Thank you, happy to hear its been working smoothly for you. I heard there's a really good custom rom called Sultan CM12, but honestly im afraid to get into roms and stuff like that because I almost bricked my nexus 4 messing with roms, and I don't really wanna take risks with this one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use Sultanxda's CM 12.1 and I can vouch that it is amazing. Great performance and battery life.
PriStol said:
Hi, Black friday deals have started popping up in my country and I found a pretty good deal on the Oneplus one so I thought i'd buy one, but I have a few questions before I do:
1. I mostly do browsing, whatsapp and some gaming on my phone so I wanted to know if the experience on the oneplus One is buttery smooth in the things I listed. I currently have an Iphone 4s and I can't stand the little stutters, long loadings before opening apps and a lot of lags in internet browsing and in Whatsapp. My main reason for buying a new phone is a better general experience, so its really important for me that the OPO will be smooth.
I just saw reviews on the new Oneplus X which has the same processor as the oneplus One, and some of the reviews said that the Snapdragon 801 is really showing its age, so it got me a bit worried.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone 4S is ancient and massively slower than pretty much any new phone on the market for several years now. Get hold of an iPhone 5/5S and you see the huge difference.
As for Snapdragon 801 "showing its age", that's still a pretty much wrong statement. Snapdragon 801 performs on about the same level with the Intel Atom processors seen in the mid-range Asus Zenfone 2, while delivering massively better battery life. The 801 is also better than Qualcomm's current 64-bit midrange Snapdragon 615. Tests show that Qualcomm's top of the line Snapdragon 808 and 810 do beat the 801 in a number of tests anywhere from a non-significant factor up to a factor of two. But those new 64-bit SoCs also have issues with heat and battery life, and so the phones using those often throttle the performance after a minute or two to prevent overheating.
In my experience, the Oneplus One is an excellent and very responsive phone. In USA, it's still the best $300 phone for those who don't demand the compatibility with the LTE's band 12. Oneplus X should have been a fine phone too considering the price of only $250, but Oneplus has really messed up the usability of LTE on the American version.
Akopps said:
The iPhone 4S is ancient and massively slower than pretty much any new phone on the market for several years now. Get hold of an iPhone 5/5S and you see the huge difference.
As for Snapdragon 801 "showing its age", that's still a pretty much wrong statement. Snapdragon 801 performs on about the same level with the Intel Atom processors seen in the mid-range Asus Zenfone 2, while delivering massively better battery life. The 801 is also better than Qualcomm's current 64-bit midrange Snapdragon 615. Tests show that Qualcomm's top of the line Snapdragon 808 and 810 do beat the 801 in a number of tests anywhere from a non-significant factor up to a factor of two. But those new 64-bit SoCs also have issues with heat and battery life, and so the phones using those often throttle the performance after a minute or two to prevent overheating.
In my experience, the Oneplus One is an excellent and very responsive phone. In USA, it's still the best $300 phone for those who don't demand the compatibility with the LTE's band 12. Oneplus X should have been a fine phone too considering the price of only $250, but Oneplus has really messed up the usability of LTE on the American version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thx for the response! I think i'll go for it then.
1.Its damn smooth for all the things you need.
2.All touch problems are resolved
3. Didn't heard about hearthstone
OPO becomes the beast if you go with custom rooms and root.
And jump from iPhone 4 to OPO it wil
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
This question is more for Developers\Advanced Users\Geeks, than the normal user\average Joe (who uses the phone 90% for Calls \SMS , Whatsapp and just a few games like Candy Crush\Fruit Ninja and a little Web surfing):
Which Phone would you prefer? Phone A or Phone B ?
I personally can't decide which I should use..
I will not (yet) post Geekbench\Antutu because:
1) The App says the name of the phone, so it wouldn't be a blind poll anymore
2) I don't really trust these more popular tests anymore because money CAN buy results or at least app optimization so less popular (but well made) apps are more likely to tell the truth
Please Read the whole text above ^ and carefully look at the Screenshots I attached before posting.. Saying that I should just choose the one with the higher numbers\benchmarks would prove to me that you do not (ever?) read the Original Post and just like troll every thread you find, OR if you did read, it would make me doubt that your IQ is enough for the xda forum.
Obviously one would choose higher benchmarks.
Thread cleaned up.
Please be civil and respect each other.
There is absolutely no need for foul language.
Let's keep it on topic please.
Thanks!
Regards
Vatsal,
Forum Moderator.
Hey.
Given your use, I would say that Phone A is the best choice. Better graphics, better Ram, onlty has a worse read and write speed (although it's half the speed, which is bad).
Still, for the type of use you describe, can't really see why you would pick phone B since it does not take a lot of read speed to open those apps decently.
Any reason for you not saying which phones they are? You clearly know that tests are not all the story, and saying wich phones these are you are letting people with that phone tell you about their experience
This does look like a Pixel vs Galaxy S7 though.
badjoras said:
Hey.
Given your use, I would say that Phone A is the best choice. Better graphics, better Ram, onlty has a worse read and write speed (although it's half the speed, which is bad).
Still, for the type of use you describe, can't really see why you would pick phone B since it does not take a lot of read speed to open those apps decently.
Any reason for you not saying which phones they are? You clearly know that tests are not all the story, and saying wich phones these are you are letting people with that phone tell you about their experience
This does look like a Pixel vs Galaxy S7 though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for your reply... you understood me wrongly...I said ''This question is for Developers\Advanced Users\Geeks, {not for } the normal user\average Joe (because [average Joe- meaning most people] uses their phone 90% for Calls \SMS , Whatsapp and just a few games like Candy Crush\Fruit Ninja and a little Web surfing)'' and they don't know anything about these geeky things.. so the cannot help me with the question. ..but that doesn't matter..it's not the point here. I just wanted to see what other people think is more important: RAM speed or NAND speed.
NOW THE DISCLOSURE:
Phone A is the Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Snapdragon 820 with adreno 530, 4gb ram,-flashed with Lineage OS ) -cost me 200€ (almost a year ago)
Phone B is the S8+ (Exynos 8895, 4gb ram) cost me 900€
Of course in all other Benchmarks (Geekbench, Antutu, Basemark OS, Basemark X,Basemark ES 3.1, 3D Mark, Lightmark, Brue Bench Pro etc) the S8+ absolutely dominates\destroys the ZUK but in these 2, where ONLY the RAM (and the Storage) gets tested , the difference is not that big between the 2 Smartphones.
In daily use I cannot see a difference in responsiveness with both of them..If I could, I wouldn't have made this thread, and would have decided on my own (which one I should use daily).
P.S: It couldn't have been the Pixel because: see my Signature (phone history).. I never had that ugly ''Ferrari''
sensationvsgalaxy said:
thanks for your reply... you understood me wrongly...I said ''This question is for Developers\Advanced Users\Geeks, {not for } the normal user\average Joe (because [average Joe- meaning most people] uses their phone 90% for Calls \SMS , Whatsapp and just a few games like Candy Crush\Fruit Ninja and a little Web surfing)'' and they don't know anything about these geeky things.. so the cannot help me with the question. ..but that doesn't matter..it's not the point here. I just wanted to see what other people think is more important: RAM speed or NAND speed.
NOW THE DISCLOSURE:
Phone A is the Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Snapdragon 820 with adreno 530, 4gb ram,-flashed with Lineage OS ) -cost me 200€ (almost a year ago)
Phone B is the S8+ (Exynos 8895, 4gb ram) cost me 900€
Of course in all other Benchmarks (Geekbench, Antutu, Basemark OS, Basemark X,Basemark ES 3.1, 3D Mark, Lightmark, Brue Bench Pro etc) the S8+ absolutely dominates\destroys the ZUK but in these 2, where ONLY the RAM (and the Storage) gets tested , the difference is not that big between the 2 Smartphones.
In daily use I cannot see a difference in responsiveness with both of them..If I could, I wouldn't have made this thread, and would have decided on my own (which one I should use daily).
P.S: It couldn't have been the Pixel because: see my Signature (phone history).. I never had that ugly ''Ferrari''
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for misreading your text.
I have a S8+ but I have had just about everything that was graded as a flagship since the time when flagships were snapdragon 600s (htc one m7 and s4) and before that all galaxy S phones.
I have had phones with the snapdragons: 800, 801, 805, 810, 820 and now 835
The thing is, could you tell the difference between what you have benchmarked in the real world? I don't think so.
Can you tell the difference between a snapdragon 800 and a 805? I sure couldnt and had a few 800s; Could you tell the difference between a 800 and a 810? definetly, although subtle; Could I tell the difference between a 810 and a 820? yup, but it's even more subtle... but from a 820 to a 835? No way.
Funny enough, you can tell the difference between a galaxy s6 and a oneplus 2, or between a Mi Mix and a S7, and both these comparisons have the same processors (hell, if we are comparing exynos, the samsungs have a more powerful processor)... The chinese phones are faster
This said, if you want to chose between a SD820 and a SD835 based on real world performance, the difference if negligible at best; if you want to go by benchmarks my Exynos s8+ scores 181k on antutu (overclocked 2.5ghz scores 5-6k more) and that is a full 20k faster than a OnePlus 3t with a SD821.
My advice won't be geeky or anything like that, we got to a point where we are putting more horsepower in a car that has no more runway to run. No app laggs a 820.
If you have both phones, use as a daily driver the phone that suits your needs better.
A phone is not a processor nor a LDDR4 ram, a phone is a whole and as a whole, AT THIS MOMENT, nothing beats the S8+ in my opinion.
badjoras said:
Sorry for misreading your text.
I have a S8+ but I have had just about everything that was graded as a flagship since the time when flagships were snapdragon 600s (htc one m7 and s4) and before that all galaxy S phones.
I have had phones with the snapdragons: 800, 801, 805, 810, 820 and now 835
The thing is, could you tell the difference between what you have benchmarked in the real world? I don't think so.
Can you tell the difference between a snapdragon 800 and a 805? I sure couldnt and had a few 800s; Could you tell the difference between a 800 and a 810? definetly, although subtle; Could I tell the difference between a 810 and a 820? yup, but it's even more subtle... but from a 820 to a 835? No way.
Funny enough, you can tell the difference between a galaxy s6 and a oneplus 2, or between a Mi Mix and a S7, and both these comparisons have the same processors (hell, if we are comparing exynos, the samsungs have a more powerful processor)... The chinese phones are faster
This said, if you want to chose between a SD820 and a SD835 based on real world performance, the difference if negligible at best; if you want to go by benchmarks my Exynos s8+ scores 181k on antutu (overclocked 2.5ghz scores 5-6k more) and that is a full 20k faster than a OnePlus 3t with a SD821.
My advice won't be geeky or anything like that, we got to a point where we are putting more horsepower in a car that has no more runway to run. No app laggs a 820.
If you have both phones, use as a daily driver the phone that suits your needs better.
A phone is not a processor nor a LDDR4 ram, a phone is a whole and as a whole, AT THIS MOMENT, nothing beats the S8+ in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with everything you said..except the last sentence:
There is something faster than a s8+: a s8+ WITH CYANOGENMOD\LINEAGE OS or Oxygen OS:angel::angel::silly::victory:
I'm planning on buying a new phone and the most important thing that I'm looking for is longevity, that is, to get a phone that will last as much as possible before I need to replace it, something like 4+ years.
The two phones that are within my price range and that I think will fulfil this criteria are: Poco F3 and Samsung Galaxy A52s
Now, I'm in a bit of a dilemma of deciding which of these two phones I should take, and the only thing that remains is to decide which of the features of these phones provide better future-proofing.
Poco F3 for example, comes with amazing specs for it's price range (SD870 CPU, Adreno 650 GPU, 8GB (DDR5) RAM, UFS 3.1 Storage speed) which seem to be flagship grade, and it does have IP53 rating. However, from what I've read, it does come with a weaker / sluggish software, that is, it's operating system MIUI, and less update support.
A52s on the other hand comes with weaker specs that are mostly aimed towards midrange phones (SD778 CPU, Adreno 642L GPU, 6GB (DDR4) RAM, UFS 2.1 Storage speed), but it does come with a bit more stable OS, more software support, and IP67 rating.
Both phones have specs that are overkill for my minimal use cases. I don't do a lot on my phone other than browse the net and watch YouTube videos, and I try to avoid dropping my phone on the ground and water so I'm not sure how much the IP ratings are relevant here. The only remaining factor in deciding which of these two phones I should get is whether or not taking a phone with better hardware (F3) has an advantage of taking a phone with better software support (A52s)?
On the one hand, if I take F3, I'll have better hardware, but less updates to push that hardware to it's maximum efficiency, and due to my use cases, I wonder if I should even bother with stronger specs, whereas if I take the A52s, I'm worried about the opposite, if it's midrange CPU (SD778) will be enough for those years ahead to push things through smoothly and without stutter, and if all these software updates will eat up more and more (of it's limited 6GB) memory.
I know that I'm probably overthinking this, but seeing how the prices are quite similar (with A52s being around ~30$ cheaper), in your opinion, which of these two would you take if you wish for a that will last you as long as possible?
IMO only the hardware specs are decisive. The OS at any time can get changed.