Database Users

How do over clock or clock my CPU to the maximum speed?

Questions:
1) How do you know if the Omnia Pro isn't also underclocked?
2) How come no one ever said that the Xperia X1 was underclocked?
3) How come there are no tweaks/ways to overclock/clock the Xperia X1?
[p.s. i have a larger battery I can withstand the strain of power usage]
4) Are there anyways to clock my CPU? Should I change my clockspeed on the X1 since I got a superb extended 3600 battery?

no offence mate, but aren't You spamming this boards a bit recently? it was mentioned dozen times before, that for now there is no method to overclock qualcomm cpus.

I once did a pretty thorough search of the registry and couldn't find anything relating to clock speed. Otherwise, Bronx is right. There are no programs you can buy etc to overclock. Some websites mistakenly list Xperia as compatible with overclocking software, but it's a mistake.

bronx said:
no offence mate, but aren't You spamming this boards a bit recently? it was mentioned dozen times before, that for now there is no method to overclock qualcomm cpus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but I needed a definite answer to this question. I copied and paste it from my original thread. Obviously no one answered my question and it pissed me off. I want my Xperia to be fast as possible as I plan on keeping my Xperia until X3 or a better phone which based on my expectations and requirements will be a very long time.

have you tried the nueDynamicClock?
it can lower the clock speed to save battery life, my X1 can last up to 3days now.. (w/minimal wi-fi use)
it also have a MaxPerformanceprofile.. i haven't tested it yet..

DaRkMyk said:
have you tried the nueDynamicClock?
it can lower the clock speed to save battery life, my X1 can last up to 3days now.. (w/minimal wi-fi use)
it also have a MaxPerformanceprofile.. i haven't tested it yet..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to try it soon.
Since I have 3600 mAh battery, I don't mind using the full potentials of my CPU.

poetryrocksalot said:
Yeah but I needed a definite answer to this question. I copied and paste it from my original thread. Obviously no one answered my question and it pissed me off. I want my Xperia to be fast as possible as I plan on keeping my Xperia until X3 or a better phone which based on my expectations and requirements will be a very long time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IF you had an original thread you should just bump it btw you already told us you had a 3600 in the first post

For the Google Phones that have the same CPU like the X1 but run only with 400 MHz this is true.
So CPU Scaling/Increasing works.
Keywords for setting the cpu speed are "cpu scaling"
In Linux you need this comand here to get information about the cpu speed.
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/*
A typical output is this here
800000
1600000
800000
1600000 800000
ondemand conservative performance
800000
powernow-k8
ondemand
1600000
800000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As you can see on my Linux Laptop system i am able to run the Notebook with 800 MHz and 1600 Mhz. My Actual speed is 800 MHz and the extra boost of 1600 Mhz will be only enabled ondemand triggered by conservative usage.
We need the right cpu scaling module (see powernow-k8) in linux for setting the cpu clock in X1 the way that we like it. Thats all every other exist allready

"I'm going to try it soon.
Since I have 3600 mAh battery, I don't mind using the full potentials of my CPU."
mind you they don't just underclock cpus to save batt time also
if they don't have good enough cooling on the chip in which case
you can kill it
in which case the warrenty would be void

Rudegar said:
"I'm going to try it soon.
Since I have 3600 mAh battery, I don't mind using the full potentials of my CPU."
mind you they don't just underclock cpus to save batt time also
if they don't have good enough cooling on the chip in which case
you can kill it
in which case the warrenty would be void
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then what is the point in having 528 MHz CPU?

poetryrocksalot said:
Then what is the point in having 528 MHz CPU?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Marketing?

orelsi said:
Marketing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but it would only seem reasonable if they LIE that the processor is 528...

poetryrocksalot said:
Yeah but it would only seem reasonable if they LIE that the processor is 528...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Marketing on the basis of creating false hope for clocking the CPU later?

Most likely an issue of heat and protecting the CPU over time. From what I understand, most phone CPUs of 500Mhz and over are underclocked.
The Palm Pre and iPhone cpu is underclocked to 600Mhz[1], the iPhone's 620Mhz was underclocked to somewhere over 400Mhz, even other HTC phones using the same Qualcomm 528Mhz as in the X1 are underclocked to 400Mhz.
[1] http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/06/gallery-deep-inside-the-iphone-3g-s/

xperiance said:
Most likely an issue of heat and protecting the CPU over time. From what I understand, most phone CPUs of 500Mhz and over are underclocked.
The Palm Pre and iPhone cpu is underclocked to 600Mhz[1], the iPhone's 620Mhz was underclocked to somewhere over 400Mhz, even other HTC phones using the same Qualcomm 528Mhz as in the X1 are underclocked to 400Mhz.
[1] http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/06/gallery-deep-inside-the-iphone-3g-s/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, so does anyone have any idea why people are underclocking? Why not just have a ****ing a 400 MHz CPU on the X1 and be done with it? Why waste 100-200 MHz that won't even be used? Have I gone crazy are all these companies just plain retarded?

Calm down.
If a CPU is built to withstand a maximum of 528Mhz, then underclocking it will extend the CPU life and reduce heating. If you took a 400Mhz CPU and ran it at max all the time it would have a decreased life compared to a 528Mhz underclocked to 400Mhz.

http://www.wizcode.com/devblog/comments/pocket_hack_master_v5_work_in_progress_announced
hope dies last dont it

well... that doesn't mean anything. as usual, before it gets released most of us will be on new device.
my advice: enjoy xperia as it is. soon You'll have to jump on to something more powerful, because one day all phones will be smartphones. it is a one way ticket and tg 01 is a sign of things to come. I am hoping, that microsoft marketplace will encourage coders to make some wonder apps for future winmo devices.

if the higher Hz cpus were made to run with a bigger headsink or even active cooling it would be somewhat of a problem for the phone makers so underclocking it would make sense
do they're official marketing push the high hz or did it just appear as specs on an unofficial site?
one reason one may put in a cpu which is able to run faster then it does is that the cheapest cpu is the one most mass produced not the one which give the lowest spcs
supply and demand set prices not speed and performance

poetryrocksalot said:
Right, so does anyone have any idea why people are underclocking? Why not just have a ****ing a 400 MHz CPU on the X1 and be done with it? Why waste 100-200 MHz that won't even be used? Have I gone crazy are all these companies just plain retarded?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As someone already said, because an underclocked CPU have an extended life and less heat compared with a CPU running always at full speed.
Take as an example laptop processors. You have 4 core but they do not always run at full speed. Why? because you have less heat, more battery life (if you have a 3600 battery, that doesn't mean everyone else have one...X1 is shipped with a 1500 battery pack), longer life.
Another answer is: because 400mhz cpu are not produced anymore or, if still in production, they cost a lot of money, compared with the mass production of new cpu. It is just economy of scale.
The real point is: can't they make a dinamic switching CPU, so that it will run 400mhz most of the time and 528mhz just when it is overloaded?

Overclocking N1

You can overclock n1 only to 1.190ghz, while desire hd 1.9ghz and the htc desire Z (G2) 2.0ghz. Does N1 has to old cpu?
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App with my Sexy Nexy

Yes. 1st Gen snapdragon
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

if you want to OC you N1 go and OC you Desktop is the best choice

Why would you wanna over clock your phone? I have my N1 clocked @ 691 and works really fast with the MIUI rom and battery performance is better than stock. I'm not a fan of custom rom & rooting but I been pretty pleased so far. overclocking the nexus one will drain your battery like crazy plus the 1st Gen of snapdragons weren't as good with graphics as the A4chips and humming birds.

i have mine underclocked too and it works fine. try going a step further and underclocking it to like 422 when it's sleeping/standby. it'll help your battery

josemedina1983 said:
Why would you wanna over clock your phone? I have my N1 clocked @ 691 and works really fast with the MIUI rom and battery performance is better than stock. I'm not a fan of custom rom & rooting but I been pretty pleased so far. overclocking the nexus one will drain your battery like crazy plus the 1st Gen of snapdragons weren't as good with graphics as the A4chips and humming birds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The connection between clockspeed and power consumption is not as strong as you think. But without a doubt it has an influence. Much more important is the voltage. If you "undervolt" the Nexus One CPU you can even get better battery live with higher clockspeed.
And if you use a tool to change the clockspeed depending on the situation (display on/off, battery % left, workload) and undervolt the cpu you can safe A LOT of juice.
With Wildmonks kernel, MIUI and SetCPU I get a much better lifetime than ever before even though my Nexus runs at 1152MHz.

Actually, the frequency makes a BIG difference in power consumption. Think of it this way - each clock causes changes propagating in transistors, which are the actual power draw. More clocks = more changes = more power drawn. As easy as that.
So, having 10% higher frequency and 10% lower voltage compensates each other.
Nexus has examples that overclock to 1.5GHz when overvolted, like Desire Z and Desire HD (both of those have to be overvolted to go up stable from 1.2GHz). Most of Nexus Ones fail when overclocking and don't reach higher than 1.2GHz, but it might be not because of the CPU, but because of other devices on system board.

Generally, it is only when you change the voltage (which is required to stabilize the higher frequency) that you see noticeable differences in battery life.
Jack_R1 said:
Actually, the frequency makes a BIG difference in power consumption. Think of it this way - each clock causes changes propagating in transistors, which are the actual power draw. More clocks = more changes = more power drawn. As easy as that.
So, having 10% higher frequency and 10% lower voltage compensates each other.
Nexus has examples that overclock to 1.5GHz when overvolted, like Desire Z and Desire HD (both of those have to be overvolted to go up stable from 1.2GHz). Most of Nexus Ones fail when overclocking and don't reach higher than 1.2GHz, but it might be not because of the CPU, but because of other devices on system board.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

willverduzco said:
Generally, it is only when you change the voltage (which is required to stabilize the higher frequency) that you see noticeable differences in battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, some additions required.
Leakage is also dependent on power, and the dependency graph isn't linear - and starts breaking upwards at some point, usually being a tad above the max designed voltage.
Going down in voltage makes leakage change approximately linear, and doesn't affect nearly as much as going up.
Overclocking will draw power just as I noted above - exactly with the same percentage difference - only when the clock is reaching the overclocked area, which happens only when you're playing games or doing CPU-intensive tasks.
Undervolting will affect leakage, which happens 100% of the time.
So yes, when running in dynamically scaled environment, undervolting has more effect than overclocking. On desktop PC, running the same clock frequency constantly, the effect is the same.

Very True. And I wasn't saying that overclocking, while at the same voltage, didn't draw ANY more power... I just am trying to say that (for example in this graph) overclocking only has a small effect on power draw until you actually change the voltage. In that same example, going from 3.4 to 3.8 GHz only adds about 6% current draw while at the same vCore, while going up a similar amount in clock speed.
I'd even wager to say that if you're slightly under-volted and as heavily overclocked as you can go at that given voltage, you'll save some trivial amount of power versus stock because of the fact that voltage affects power draw significantly more than clock speed. I would also wager that if you are at an overclocked speed and are at stock voltage, the amount of current and power draw will be almost indistinguishable to the end user, since things like display will almost always use much more power if the display is on for any appreciable amount of time.
Jack_R1 said:
Ok, some additions required.
Leakage is also dependent on power, and the dependency graph isn't linear - and starts breaking upwards at some point, usually being a tad above the max designed voltage.
Going down in voltage makes leakage change approximately linear, and doesn't affect nearly as much as going up.
Overclocking will draw power just as I noted above - exactly with the same percentage difference - only when the clock is reaching the overclocked area, which happens only when you're playing games or doing CPU-intensive tasks.
Undervolting will affect leakage, which happens 100% of the time.
So yes, when running in dynamically scaled environment, undervolting has more effect than overclocking. On desktop PC, running the same clock frequency constantly, the effect is the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Jack_R1 said:
Actually, the frequency makes a BIG difference in power consumption. Think of it this way - each clock causes changes propagating in transistors, which are the actual power draw. More clocks = more changes = more power drawn. As easy as that.
So, having 10% higher frequency and 10% lower voltage compensates each other
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't call 10% more peak power consumption big if you take in account that the cpu is only running at the max clock speed a very small amount of time. 90% of the time the device is sleeping anyway and even if it's not you barely need the max clock speed. But if you do you will recognize the difference.
On the other side the reduced voltaged can safe you power all the time.
willverduzco said:
I'd even wager to say that if you're slightly under-volted and as heavily overclocked as you can go at that given voltage, you'll save some trivial amount of power versus stock because of the fact that voltage affects power draw significantly more than clock speed. I would also wager that if you are at an overclocked speed and are at stock voltage, the amount of current and power draw will be almost indistinguishable to the end user, since things like display will almost always use much more power if the display is on for any appreciable amount of time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what I experienced.

Pommes_Schranke said:
I wouldn't call 10% more peak power consumption big if you take in account that the cpu is only running at the max clock speed a very small amount of time. 90% of the time the device is sleeping anyway and even if it's not you barely need the max clock speed. But if you do you will recognize the difference.
On the other side the reduced voltaged can safe you power all the time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, you're right, and that's why I corrected myself in my second post. I totally forgot about the frequency scaling.

Off topic, but this is why I love XDA. Rational debate over a subject by intelligent people, where there usually isn't flaming. Thanks added to the two of your posts.

[Q] CPU Explanation

Hello, can someone please explain how my battery life improves when I set minimum cpu clock from 200 to 500?
I usually get 3 hours of screen time, with 500 as minimum I get nearly 4 hours. This difference is significant enough to make me wonder and ponder about how this happens.
It's counter logical, something with a higher minimum should drain faster.. right?

Does both cpu states are working at the same voltage? If yes (or the difference is very small) then the battery saving are from the increased execution speed .

In my own opinion, i dont think it affect much, while more than 70%+ battery drain by screen, unless u use cpu 100% all the time, otherwise i wouldnt too much concern abt that
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA Premium HD app

Chip efficiency changes with frequency. We tested this on my other phone (an Atrix- nice phone even now!)
Sometimes the CPU is just more power efficient doing tasks at higher frequencies. In a sense, the processor works faster, but for less time- so although it is running faster and requires more battery power, it completes the task much earlier and uses less power in total for that process.
My note, when running at 1.4ghz uses battery so much faster than at 1ghz, but the battery saving when dropping down from 1ghz is minimal, if existent at all.

Welcome to the not-always-intuitive world of modern CPU power usage.
The old mantra "higher frequencies use more power" becomes muddy in situations where the CPU can clock-gate parts of the chip when idle (cpuidle) and where the CPU voltage can change.
It was proven nearly a decade ago that if you don't change voltage at all with clock AND you have a good cpuidle implementation - it is actually best to always clock the CPU at maximum frequency. When voltage changes are in effect - it's harder to tell.
On most devices, the voltage for 500 and 200 are nearly identical. 500 does, I believe, have a somewhat higher bus frequency. So for a given workload, 500 MHz at, say, 20% load will use not much more power than 200 MHz at 50% load. In some cases, a device running at 500 MHz will finish a task more quickly and enter deep sleep faster.
Pretty much - 200 vs. 500 is really questionable in terms of which is best for power consumption. This is why I always set my screen-on minimum to 500.
Any frequency below 200 MHz is pointless as you can't undervolt those frequencies enough compared to 200 to make them have any benefit - in fact in many cases, adding a 100 MHz step is WORSE for battery.
Edit: One thing to note - In Gingerbread, the cpuidle driver was FAR less effective than it is in ICS. Only LPA and IDLE states were enabled by default, and the target residency for both was 40 ms.
In ICS, LPA, AFTR, and IDLE states are enabled and the target residency is 10ms. So it can hit deeper idle states far more often. For example, AFTR isn't as good as LPA - but it's better than dropping all the way to IDLE if you can't enter LPA. This is, in general, why the power consumption when wakelocked is much lower in ICS.
The bad news is that the suspend/resume cycle of the device is longer in ICS, AND cpuidle is totally blocked during suspend/resume - so the suspend/resume cycle eats even more juice than it did before, and it was historically one of the biggest users of power. Eventually I want to try and reduce this consumption.

Thanks for the good explanation mate, it has made things clear for me
Will be keeping my note on minimum of 500MHz aswell as it is a good improvement with no or next to no extra battery drain

Which rom has a good battery life?

Hey i tried many diffrent rom bui i can only get 2.5h SOT. Which kernel do you use and which rom to get the maximum battery life without lag?

Battery<----------------------------------->Performance
They are at opposite ends. If you want maximum battery life then there no way to avoid lag.
You can completely turn off 2 or 3 cores, leaving you with a single or dual core phone;
You can also underclock and undervolt the remaining cores, reducing power consumption even more.
This is very battery friendly (in theory), but, as I said, it will give you big lags.
I added a rom video review to the help thread. You might want to check it out.

obol2 said:
Hey i tried many diffrent rom bui i can only get 2.5h SOT. Which kernel do you use and which rom to get the maximum battery life without lag?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like you really need a new battery
GDReaper said:
Battery<----------------------------------->Performance
They are at opposite ends. If you want maximum battery life then there no way to avoid lag.
You can completely turn off 2 or 3 cores, leaving you with a single or dual core phone;
You can also underclock and undervolt the remaining cores, reducing power consumption even more.
This is very battery friendly (in theory), but, as I said, it will give you big lags.
I added a rom video review to the help thread. You might want to check it out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't mean to troll, but can't help it. Turn a quad core cpu into a dual core? Really?!
Erm... ok.

thundastruck said:
Don't mean to troll, but can't help it. Turn a quad core cpu into a dual core? Really?!
Erm... ok.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have any better ideas on how to increase battery life?
Cores need power to run. Turning them off is a completely logical option.
You really don't need all the cores for most tasks. You can browse Facebook, or whatever, just fine with only two cores.
I am currently running in dual-core mode with max cpu frequency at 1.2 GHz and it still is smooth.

GDReaper said:
Do you have any better ideas on how to increase battery life?
Cores need power to run. Turning them off is a completely logical option.
You really don't need all the cores for most tasks. You can browse Facebook, or whatever, just fine with only two cores.
I am currently running in dual-core mode with max cpu frequency at 1.2 GHz and it still is smooth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I aldeady underclockt it to 1.2 ghz and undervolting it -625000 uV. Shut off to cores and use intellimm. I also under clock gpu to 320 mhz and under volt it 1 step down. I use zen with 1024 kb. Turn off android logger and zram. Use amplify, power nap, greenify and Max 700 mhz screen off. What I can do more?

obol2 said:
I aldeady underclockt it to 1.2 ghz and undervolting it -625000 uV. Shut off to cores and use intellimm. I also under clock gpu to 320 mhz and under volt it 1 step down. I use zen with 1024 kb. Turn off android logger and zram. Use amplify, power nap, greenify and Max 700 mhz screen off. What I can do more?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing.
Test your battery. Or better yet, start thinking of getting a replacement or a new phone. With a 2 hour charge something seriously is wrong with your device.
My 3 year old S4-i9500 still comfortably gets through the day. Bought a brand new original battery 6 months ago. Smooth sailing. No under-volting, shutting off cores, under-clocking or any crap like that. Phone is custom rom'med and correctly so if I may add.

obol2 said:
I aldeady underclockt it to 1.2 ghz and undervolting it -625000 uV. Shut off to cores and use intellimm. I also under clock gpu to 320 mhz and under volt it 1 step down. I use zen with 1024 kb. Turn off android logger and zram. Use amplify, power nap, greenify and Max 700 mhz screen off. What I can do more?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lower values for read ahead cache are more battery friendly.
Also, bfq is considered more battery friendly too.

thundastruck said:
Nothing.
Test your battery. Or better yet, start thinking of getting a replacement or a new phone. With a 2 hour charge something seriously is wrong with your device.
My 3 year old S4-i9500 still comfortably gets through the day. Bought a brand new original battery 6 months ago. Smooth sailing. No under-volting, shutting off cores, under-clocking or any crap like that. Phone is custom rom'med and correctly so if I may add.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In two month I will get a new phone. I want to buy the lg v10 but don't know if it is worth or lg g4 / moto x style.

obol2 said:
In two month I will get a new phone. I want to buy the lg v10 but don't know if it is worth or lg g4 / moto x style.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Never heard of these models except for lg g4, which was crap imo.

thundastruck said:
With a 2 hour charge something seriously is wrong with your device.
My 3 year old S4-i9500 still comfortably gets through the day
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are aware that he said 2.5h SOT, "screen on time" ?
That means that after using it for an entire day or two, the combined time of the screen being on is 2.5 hours, and in my opinion that is not really bad.
The screen is always the culprit when it comes to power consumption, and in a phone with a battery that doesnt exeed 2000mah its just natural
that after about 2-3 hours of the screen being on the little battery is empty, and no ammount of undervolting will extend that significantly.
The only thing he can consider to increase SOT is a bigger battery, if he doesnt mind the bigger bulge at the back.

Backe888 said:
You are aware that he said 2.5h SOT, "screen on time" ?
That means that after using it for an entire day or two, the combined time of the screen being on is 2.5 hours, and in my opinion that is not really bad.
The screen is always the culprit when it comes to power consumption, and in a phone with a battery that doesnt exeed 2000mah its just natural
that after about 2-3 hours of the screen being on the little battery is empty, and no ammount of undervolting will extend that significantly.
The only thing he can consider to increase SOT is a bigger battery, if he doesnt mind the bigger bulge at the back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Had no idea - never really cared what SOT stands for anyway! But thanks for clearing that up. Always had satisfactory battery life on my S4. The few times I didn't was when a rom on my phone went bad & subsequently had to flash another.
So if what you say is true regarding a day or 2 battery life, then what is this chump complaining about? Turning water into wine? :silly:

So @GDReaper idea is right!I currently am on crDroid and when I switch off 2 or 3 cores the phone is as fast as it was and the battery lasts a little bit longer..With normal charging it goes to full for about 1 hour and half and without using it the batttery lasts 1-2 days,using it lasts about 3 hours or 4.I flashed a new kernel and turned on fast charging on Kernel Adiutor,now the phone charges full for about 45 minutes and lasts same! I'm very happy with my battery bcs I haven't changed it since I got the phone!

Redmi Note 7 Battery Issue

Just bought Note 7 yesterday. Got an update. Current Rom version is Miui 10 (10.2.8.0) Stable. My phone's battery is draining a lot.
My previous device was Redmi Note 5 Ai and on that device I got a great battery backup. Like 1 hour+ SOT consume only 10% charge but on RN7 I got only 30-35 min SOT on 10% charge.
And draining percentage is also high, regular social media and other task takes around 400-500 mA continuously but on RN5 it was only 300-350 mA
Is is rom issue or something else?

Saikot Khan said:
Just bought Note 7 yesterday. Got an update. Current Rom version is Miui 10 (10.2.8.0) Stable. My phone's battery is draining a lot.
My previous device was Redmi Note 5 Ai and on that device I got a great battery backup. Like 1 hour+ SOT consume only 10% charge but on RN7 I got only 30-35 min SOT on 10% charge.
And draining percentage is also high, regular social media and other task takes around 400-500 mA continuously but on RN5 it was only 300-350 mA
Is is rom issue or something else?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RN5 and RN7 has same size battery. But RN7 uses more powerful and power hungry soc, AND has bigger display to light. So dont you think its only logical to get such results?

Incogn said:
RN5 and RN7 has same size battery. But RN7 uses more powerful and power hungry soc, AND has bigger display to light. So dont you think its only logical to get such results?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait, i thought the more powerful a chipset is, the more it's optimized to be less battery hungry? Wow, thank goodness I never fell for those flagships with 3000mAh.

SonyObsessed said:
Wait, i thought the more powerful a chipset is, the more it's optimized to be less battery hungry? Wow, thank goodness I never fell for those flagships with 3000mAh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With smartphone socs its all about semiconductor size. While its true that newer architecture 7nm snapdragon 855 will be more power EFFICIENT than 10nm snapdragon 845, it doesnt necessarily mean its gonna use less power, because its also faster, running at highers clocks and in result using more power. If 855 only had to reach 845 performance level, then yes, it would use less power. In this case, RN5 uses sd636, while RN7 uses sd660, which is basically same soc. Same architecture, same design, only difference being sd660 is a bit faster because its clock frequency is bigger. To put it simply sd660 is overclocked sd636. So logically it uses more power, because higher frequency requires higher voltage, and higher voltage means more energy used.

Incogn said:
With smartphone socs its all about semiconductor size. While its true that newer architecture 7nm snapdragon 855 will be more power EFFICIENT than 10nm snapdragon 845, it doesnt necessarily mean its gonna use less power, because its also faster, running at highers clocks and in result using more power. If 855 only had to reach 845 performance level, then yes, it would use less power. In this case, RN5 uses sd636, while RN7 uses sd660, which is basically same soc. Same architecture, same design, only difference being sd660 is a bit faster because its clock frequency is bigger. To put it simply sd660 is overclocked sd636. So logically it uses more power, because higher frequency requires higher voltage, and higher voltage means more energy used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow thanks for this.