Related
As we all know, the new trend in smartphones now is moving towards the new cortex a9 chips such as the tegra 2, orion, QSD 8960 (I think), etc. However, is all this raw horsepower really necessary? I mean, sure, apps open up 1 sec. faster, web pages load 4-5 seconds faster, and I understand the concept on future proofing, but single core devices are just as capable. To me, 500 is not worth not being able to wait 5 seconds. And don't forgot about Google's new baby, the Nexus S. What is your opinion? Are you getting a dual core? Personally, I am waiting for the quad cores!
Everything will drop in price over time. Right now, of course it's expensive, it's a new feature.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Do we really NEED a computer/HD-TV that fits in your pocket, has wireless data, apps, wifi hotspot capability, and even makes phone calls/texts?...
I say yes. Plus, don't forget the potential battery life gains out of multi-core. But hey.... I carry around a spare battery, and that works pretty well for me.
No, we don't, BUT, they'll make us THINK we WANT it and that's ($$$) what's important to them.
Like you said, those 4-5 seconds load up time, worth it for $500? Naaa.
I'll stick with my Vibrant and let others be the beta testers.
These such things are not really our NEEDS, but our WANTS.
XPLANE9 said:
As we all know, the new trend in smartphones now is moving towards the new cortex a9 chips such as the tegra 2, orion, QSD 8960 (I think), etc. However, is all this raw horsepower really necessary? I mean, sure, apps open up 1 sec. faster, web pages load 4-5 seconds faster, and I understand the concept on future proofing, but single core devices are just as capable. To me, 500 is not worth not being able to wait 5 seconds. And don't forgot about Google's new baby, the Nexus S. What is your opinion? Are you getting a dual core? Personally, I am waiting for the quad cores!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You kind of contradicted yourself with the last sentence.
personally, i only use my device to make calls, txt'g, listen to music and maybe surf the web (rarely). i don't think i would benefit THAT much from a dual core, but on the other hand, if the battery life is better......
aside from that, i'm getting great battery life out of the rom i'm running now, so that isn't much of an issue now.
XPLANE9 said:
As we all know, the new trend in smartphones now is moving towards the new cortex a9 chips such as the tegra 2, orion, QSD 8960 (I think), etc. However, is all this raw horsepower really necessary? I mean, sure, apps open up 1 sec. faster, web pages load 4-5 seconds faster, and I understand the concept on future proofing, but single core devices are just as capable. To me, 500 is not worth not being able to wait 5 seconds. And don't forgot about Google's new baby, the Nexus S. What is your opinion? Are you getting a dual core? Personally, I am waiting for the quad cores!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"You will never need more than 640K" -BG
It's inevitable. Power will become better, apps written for dual cores and so on. This is pretty much an open ended question with an infinite answer. In short Yes.
There's no such thing as "too much" in the technology world.
You may not need it right now, but the apps will advance and become even better, since the multi-threading will bring new possibilities.
Also, I never thought I would need 6 cores on my desktop PC. And look at me. I'm playing for a Dual 6-core Xeon server to fall from the sky right on my yard.
Apple/AT&T can answer this question better since they are good at convincing people they do not need more than 2GB of data or flash on their smartphones
Why would anyone need more then a 2400 baud modem
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
VICosPhi said:
Apple/AT&T can answer this question better since they are good at convincing people they do not need more than 2GB of data or flash on their smartphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet they are killing the market so far, maybe the OP has a point, do we really need all this processing power? what we need from phones is for them to utilize what they already have more efficiently. If Team Whiskey can make roms that takes me from 8-12 hours a day battery life to 20-24hours on the SAME hardware, I think that's where manufacturers should be spending their time. Zero lag anytime, excellent battery life and even a 600-800mhz processor will be blazing on Android.
Apple has done a great job with that for the most part..hope Google does follows suite soon!
Dual cores will improve battery life.
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk
Not only that but there is an overwhelming trend away from laptops to tablets and smart phones. The more horse power these phones have the more we will be able to do with them. In addition Frany1029 is right, dual cores will drastically improve battery life over what we have now. Plus itll be cool to have a phone that is more powerful than most netbooks.
VICosPhi said:
Apple/AT&T can answer this question better since they are good at convincing people they do not need more than 2GB of data or flash on their smartphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I LOLd hard.
And yeah, I think that progression is inevitable. Its always been that way with everything. Evolve or get left behind. Simple as that.
Yes.
I want system on chip with dual core cpu and dual core gpu. You wanna talk bout battery life? Lol.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
jamesd86 said:
Yes.
I want system on chip with dual core cpu and dual core gpu. You wanna talk bout battery life? Lol.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't say I really want system on a chip. Might lead to some severe lock down of the OS.
Do we need dual cores? Depends. For heavy media devices, PMPs and such I can see the need for dual cores. For a smartphone? Not really.
A 1.4 GHz Single Core with a 1900 mAh battery and 4" Super LCD/AMOLED screen would do me just fine.
I prefer backgrounding (iOS/WP7) with push notifications (WP7-style) to 3rd-party preemptive multitasking. System apps can multi-task, those that need to (media player, browser, etc.).
I am actually starting to question the value of Adobe Flash on a smartphone now, after seeing how terribly it performs on this one. I also question the value of ridiculous 4G speeds for users who don't tether their computer to their phone...
dungeon defenders will answer your question.
Do I NEED my BMW? No. But it's always nice to have. Same can be said of pretty much any luxury, and right now, that's exactly what the dual core processors are.
I was totally buying into the dual core processing for all these new phones until I stopped looking at the "cool factor" and started actually thinking...
In all reality, why in the world do we need a dual core processor on a cell phone?
Don't even say 3d gaming, because that's just ridiculous. The percentage of people that want to play call of duty on their cell phones is probably less than the amount of people who know what rooting is.
What's wrong with optimizing our current 1 and 1.2 ghz processors to give us optimized performance and throwing in decent GPU's?
Anything more than that is COMPLETELY unnecessary for a cell phone.
Where do you guys think the cellular industry is heading?
Its moving waaay too fast imo.
Why don't we focus on things that people are having issues with like Battery Life, build quality of the phones, quality of cameras, crappy software, etc?
I don't know.... Sometimes I feel like the only person with sense nowadays.
Feel Me?
I always thought that dual cores were supposed to be more efficient and therefore have greater battery life and better multitasking experiences.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
I would say you don't know the purpose of dual core processors. At this point in time their purpose would be to support all of the multitasking rather than making one program run better (since most programs at this point are not programmed to take advantage of multiple cores). With simultaneous programs running on separate cores you would avoid the slow down that you would experience if you were running them all on the same core. I would agree with focusing more on battery life to some extent though.
Miamicane99 said:
I would say you don't know the purpose of dual core processors. At this point in time their purpose would be to support all of the multitasking rather than making one program run better (since most programs at this point are not programmed to take advantage of multiple cores). With simultaneous programs running on separate cores you would avoid the slow down that you would experience if you were running them all on the same core. I would agree with focusing more on battery life to some extent though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, really?
My year old snapdragon runs numerous programs together perfectly smooth with absolutely no hiccups or lag.
I'm willing to bet a stock phone with (as I stated in the OP) optimized 1 or 1.2 ghz processor and GPU, add in a decent amount of ram and you have absolutely everything you need.
The hardware isn't the problem with android, it's the software. For some reason people don't seem to notice that. There remedy is to add unnecessary power to our phones that will more than likely never be used...
If dual core is somehow supposed to increase battery life, then I can understand somewhat the reasoning behind them. But I don't understand how two processors will noticeably help battery life in real time.
Miamicane99 said:
I would say you don't know the purpose of dual core processors. At this point in time their purpose would be to support all of the multitasking rather than making one program run better (since most programs at this point are not programmed to take advantage of multiple cores). With simultaneous programs running on separate cores you would avoid the slow down that you would experience if you were running them all on the same core. I would agree with focusing more on battery life to some extent though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice try, but the purpose is to make apps also run better. Apps can easily be patched to take advantage of multiple cores and enhance its performance and such.
Also, multiple cores allow for higher performance with a lower hit on battery life. That alone is enough of a purpose of multiple cores. Not to mention ability to stream full 1080p videos, etc, which will eventually be the norm. This is specially important when outputting to TVs and the like.
starplaya93 said:
I was totally buying into the dual core processing for all these new phones until I stopped looking at the "cool factor" and started actually thinking...
In all reality, why in the world do we need a dual core processor on a cell phone?
Don't even say 3d gaming, because that's just ridiculous. The percentage of people that want to play call of duty on their cell phones is probably less than the amount of people who know what rooting is.
What's wrong with optimizing our current 1 and 1.2 ghz processors to give us optimized performance and throwing in decent GPU's?
Anything more than that is COMPLETELY unnecessary for a cell phone.
Where do you guys think the cellular industry is heading?
Its moving waaay too fast imo.
Why don't we focus on things that people are having issues with like Battery Life, build quality of the phones, quality of cameras, crappy software, etc?
I don't know.... Sometimes I feel like the only person with sense nowadays.
Feel Me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are absolutely right. While we are at it, shouldn't 64K of memory be enough for anybody?
akarol said:
Also, multiple cores allow for higher performance with a lower hit on battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you get this from?
starplaya93 said:
Lol, really?
My year old snapdragon runs numerous programs together perfectly smooth with absolutely no hiccups or lag.
I'm willing to bet a stock phone with (as I stated in the OP) optimized 1 or 1.2 ghz processor and GPU, add in a decent amount of ram and you have absolutely everything you need.
The hardware isn't the problem with android, it's the software. For some reason people don't seem to notice that. There remedy is to add unnecessary power to our phones that will more than likely never be used...
If dual core is somehow supposed to increase battery life, then I can understand somewhat the reasoning behind them. But I don't understand how two processors will noticeably help battery life in real time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
absolutely right, android sucks when it comes to graphics. No hardware acceleration. Perfect example of why a first gen iPhone can run circles around a evo with half the hardware power when it comes to rendering effects and graphics. These hardware specs are just SPECS anyways. That dual core Tegra LG android phone thats coming out still lags despite how powerful it is.
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Perhaps this is a case of build it and they (new uses) will come? Good points on both side.
No, 3D is a gimmick. Dualcore CPU's, until fully optimized - and even then - is not a gimmick.
NewZJ said:
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
eh, i wouldnt necessarily call it a gimmick, imagine a dual core android phone that did have hardware acceleration. The possibilities would be crazy!!
But yes I totally agree with you also, until the fix the inherent flaw in every android device, more powerful harware is just going to drain the battery faster, instead of just optimizing the OS. Which sounds easy in practice but when there are hundreds of android devices, its probably not an easy task. ( i could very well be wrong though)
NewZJ said:
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tell that to my quad core PC!
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
If you build it, they will come.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
starplaya93 said:
I was totally buying into the dual core processing for all these new phones until I stopped looking at the "cool factor" and started actually thinking...
In all reality, why in the world do we need a dual core processor on a cell phone?
Don't even say 3d gaming, because that's just ridiculous. The percentage of people that want to play call of duty on their cell phones is probably less than the amount of people who know what rooting is.
What's wrong with optimizing our current 1 and 1.2 ghz processors to give us optimized performance and throwing in decent GPU's?
Anything more than that is COMPLETELY unnecessary for a cell phone.
Where do you guys think the cellular industry is heading?
Its moving waaay too fast imo.
Why don't we focus on things that people are having issues with like Battery Life, build quality of the phones, quality of cameras, crappy software, etc?
I don't know.... Sometimes I feel like the only person with sense nowadays.
Feel Me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it makes perfect sense , a lot is being asked out of a phone ,console like 3d graphics for gaming and yeah i do like some games on my evo like angry birds once in awhile but overall my main priority of my evo is just communicating and and apps for productivity like wifi tether etc. and the rest is for customizing which im pretty happy that my over clocked processor handles that great with occasional lags buts thats just the software though , if wanted gaming i would go with home consoles or portable gaming , i agree that people are just giving dual core too much hype , Right?
novanosis85 said:
If you build it, they will come.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Good one. lol
I don't think I said exactly what I meant in the OP...
My main point is that android does not need dual core processors at this point. We are still a new OS and there are tons of bugs and things that should be ironed out in the software, etc.
I have no problem with dual core processors if some people feel they will offer better performance and battery life than a 3rd or 4th generation fully optimized 1.2 ghz processor with a beast gpu.
My concern is that android is moving too fast for its own good. The OS has a lot of potential, but if we're just trying to blaze past the competition we're missing out ON A LOT of things.
3d is hands down a gimmick. There is absolutely no justification for that. lol
novanosis85 said:
Tell that to my quad core PC!
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
aight, take your quad for example, lets say its 3ghz, now make a 12ghz single core and only run 2~3 apps at a time, I think it will run them better and use less power to do so
NewZJ said:
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A single core 2GHz CPU would probably be slower and suck up more juice than a dual core 1 GHz CPU.
I personally agree with the mentality of energy efficiency over power. I'm just not certain whether dual cores are better or worse in that regard. Two cores doing a few simple tasks would be more energy efficient than a similarly designed single core doing the same tasks, but firing both cores up at max performance would obviously not be. Right now, aside from gaming, I don't see any apps that would strain a dual core; so if provided with great software support from the kernel/OS, maybe multiple cores are the better option. I don't know, maybe someone more technical could shed some light.
Regardless though, software will evolve and become more complex and resource hungry. Maybe HD video editing (not complex just simple social network / personal stuff) and some other stuff I can't think of but will likely pop up. I definitely see much more value in having a powerful GPU, a big reason why I think the EVO ultimately falls short, but like I said, maybe big phones + big batteries (1900+ mAh) + small CPUs and components + multiple cores + and optimized software is the answer to the battery problems.
NewZJ said:
aight, take your quad for example, lets say its 3ghz, now make a 12ghz single core and only run 2~3 apps at a time, I think it will run them better and use less power to do so
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. No, it wont.
I still can't understand why everyone wants to upgrade processors so quickly. I am not talking about any device or processor in particular but in general. Like our pc's. How many pc's come with a decent amount of memory out of the box. That is usually one of the first things we must do to really enjoy it unless u spent the money on a high end gaming pc. Why don't they beef up the memory on these while they work on dual core stuff.
In no way am I saying I don't think I need a dual core. More is always better with that kind of stuff. I would definitely take a dual over a single core. Just wandering why memory always seems like it could use more. Phones and pc's
Sent from my rooted HTC EVO using the xda app!
so the pattern is doubling the number of cores every generations then the next generation should have 8core processor?
I highly doubt it...
Probably a hex core.
Swyped from my OG Droid running CM7
I just noticed this in Tapatalk new posts, and just HAD to answer.
What's the point?
Name one situation where you would even need that.
Samsung needs to work on improving other practical features.
They've always upgraded what makes people fall for their phones, but never anything actually useful.
Years ago, their phone cameras went up in megapixels, but sucked no matter how much megapixels they had. Because megapixels aren't as important as is other more technical camera features. But megapixels are easiest to advertise so they went with those.
Personally I think a single core was enough. Now, phone companies need to work on RAM. They could stuff a lot more RAM in before they need to upgrade the processor.
/myopinion
Sent from my HTC Dream using Tapatalk
No, we will get more quad graphics
Sent from my HTC Explorer using XDA
Doubt it. these apps doesnt even require 8 cores. if any of these phone users require 8 core just to play games, either get a console or a decent pc.
8 core to play Angry birds or Shadowgun...pffftt...
will 8 core make me type faster?
Just Faster Speeds
tbh, I think faster speeds are really the only shift we'll be seeing at least next year for sure, but probably the year after that as well. Although with Windows 8 on ARM on the horizon, perhaps devs may find a way to do some serious mobile computing.
i don't think that 8 core will be useful for a device of 5" or 6"
They will stay at quad core but use the faster A15 architecture.
It's possible they might add some low powered A7 cores in a big.little configuration to improve battery life.
It will also have a next gen Mali gpu. Either Mali 604 or t658.
I'm also expecting it to have 2gb of ram.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA
Why would you even care...
Sent from my Lumia 800 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
vnvman said:
Why would you even care...
Sent from my Lumia 800 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol coming from a WP user
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
I'm not entirely convinced multi-cored phones of any variety are even really getting fully utilized yet :/
I honestly believe cores are more of a marketing gimmick at the moment. I could be wrong, I'm no expert and I don't have the ability to see how well android handles the fine details.. But, there are a lot of factors most people don't even think about when buying phones.. Manufacturers know you're not going to ask "Well what about this 1.5ghz single core processor preforming 4 instructions per clock compared to this dual core phone performing 1.5 instructions per clock?"
Maybe when I go to upgrade my captivate I'll worry about cores more but, at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if dual cores were preforming better than quad cores since they have been out longer and had more time to get optimized in the code.
Dual core phones are already fast enough but seems like phones will start competing with pc in the next few years.
Imo RAM n battery life need to be increased greatly then manufactures should start thinking about future multiple core cpu.
Imagine a hex core cpu n the juice it needs
Yes, RAM!
ya, I definitely think RAM has a place because that's one of the best things about smartphones is the ability to multi-task! So if manufacturers can further cater to that, then I think more cores may follow, especially if we get more TRUE multi-tasking where you have live apps running. Because then, you can delegate individual cores to individual apps that are running. ATM I'm not entirely sure why I would need multiple live apps running simultaneously on a phone, however I think for business workers/students it could be helpful to be watching a live stream or doing a conference call while taking notes in an office suite app.
FinancialWar said:
lol coming from a WP user
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL coming from somebody using even lesser hardware than mine. Pull out the wallet and get sum 6 core goodness you cheapo. You even fail at trolling, come on you can do better than this.
On a more serious note, even Win7 has issues handling more than 6 cores efficiently, so why would anyone even bother having 8 effing cores on a phone. A full desktop experience would be useless anyway on something like a phone, only no life nerds should get all excited about something like that. I wonder why people can't just enjoy the current technology, looking so far just means that one hasn't really got **** to do all day IMHO.
Sent from my Lumia 800 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Snow_fox said:
I'm not entirely convinced multi-cored phones of any variety are even really getting fully utilized yet :/
I honestly believe cores are more of a marketing gimmick at the moment. I could be wrong, I'm no expert and I don't have the ability to see how well android handles the fine details.. But, there are a lot of factors most people don't even think about when buying phones.. Manufacturers know you're not going to ask "Well what about this 1.5ghz single core processor preforming 4 instructions per clock compared to this dual core phone performing 1.5 instructions per clock?"
Maybe when I go to upgrade my captivate I'll worry about cores more but, at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if dual cores were preforming better than quad cores since they have been out longer and had more time to get optimized in the code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. One needs to wonder why would a decent mobile OS need this much power anyway?
vnvman said:
LOL coming from somebody using even lesser hardware than mine. Pull out the wallet and get sum 6 core goodness you cheapo. You even fail at trolling, come on you can do better than this.
On a more serious note, even Win7 has issues handling more than 6 cores efficiently, so why would anyone even bother having 8 effing cores on a phone. A full desktop experience would be useless anyway on something like a phone, only no life nerds should get all excited about something like that. I wonder why people can't just enjoy the current technology, looking so far just means that one hasn't really got **** to do all day IMHO.
Sent from my Lumia 800 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use even lesser lesser lesser, and lesser hardware
Instead of wasting money (which I don't have) on a newer phone, I work on optimizing Android to run at its best on my phone. Look at the Sony PSP. The XMB is amazing for a 333mhz processor. (And its actually clocked at 222mhz at the XMB). Now, were not talking about the browser here, that sucks. Sony spent time on the OS itself. They won't get thanked for it by the people who look at the features list on the box, but they engineered a wonderful OS for such a weak device.
Sent from my HTC Dream using Tapatalk
the s4 will be dualcore 2.3ghz the s5 will probably be some insane cpu and graphics chip capable of running mw3 im 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% sure they will be more powerful than a xbox 360
Battery and ram def need to be upped. I also think phone manuf should provide a extended battery option with every high powered phone. I would also like to see a slow down on e amount of phones coming out. Perfect your flagship mid and lower powered phones then move on
Sent from my VS920 4G using xda premium
I hope they will stop messing with cores and screen sizes and let's focus on batteries and RAM.
Most apps and software don't even use two cores, let alone four, forbid more than that.
frankdrey said:
I use even lesser lesser lesser, and lesser hardware
Instead of wasting money (which I don't have) on a newer phone, I work on optimizing Android to run at its best on my phone. Look at the Sony PSP. The XMB is amazing for a 333mhz processor. (And its actually clocked at 222mhz at the XMB). Now, were not talking about the browser here, that sucks. Sony spent time on the OS itself. They won't get thanked for it by the people who look at the features list on the box, but they engineered a wonderful OS for such a weak device.
Sent from my HTC Dream using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hehe, I know what you mean...a year ago I had a Desire, and it was amazing to see how greatly the software could work after some tweaking, compared to stock. Sure it was kinda challenging, but it really felt like it was worth it: that phone was a living thing to me, I could hear it breathing. I swear I almost cried when I sold it, and I actually immediately regretted doing it, but it was too late. It was like leaving a dog on the side of the road or something like that, but at that time I was all excited about the fresh dual core thing, so I couldn't think rationally. There are days when I still feel very guilty about what I did. I'll never do that again. Guys seriously, if you have an old Android device with you don't sell it, you will regret it. Maybe not now, and not even in a few months, but you definitely will, trust me, especially if you've been living with it for a while (I had that phone for over a year).
Selling the GS2 didn't actually make me feel that way, probably because I've only kept it for a few months and didn't really tweak it that much...
8 cores is long way to go.
no way 8 core phone in next 3 years!
---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------
I Am Marino said:
I hope they will stop messing with cores and screen sizes and let's focus on batteries and RAM.
Most apps and software don't even use two cores, let alone four, forbid more than that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats ri8 More RAM and Longer Battery life is way to go.
They already have superb camera and beautiful display
In real phone scenario what we could benefit more? Will a quad-core be faster the 2gb of ram? Or will a 2gb will perform better against quad-core?
Pocketnow did a video between the gs2 and gs3 and both were opening apps really quick, they were really close on browsing, gaming. Do you think the 2gb will make a difference on the phone compare to the international? What are your thoughts?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
2GB will help with multitasking while the faster processor will help with gaming and to a degree, faster apps.
If it were an iPhone, then the quad core would be much better because apps will actually make use of the amazing gpu. In android, I doubt there will be an app released in the next year or two that realistically benefits from the quad core's gpu vs the dual core's.
Both the dual and quad core will have all of the software optimizations Samsung has done for web browsing. The 2gb memory is probably overkill at this point, but in theory it means that apps will never close in the background since there will be no need to free up new memory.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
lepapirriky said:
In real phone scenario what we could benefit more? Will a quad-core be faster the 2gb of ram? Or will a 2gb will perform better against quad-core?
Pocketnow did a video between the gs2 and gs3 and both were opening apps really quick, they were really close on browsing, gaming. Do you think the 2gb will make a difference on the phone compare to the international? What are your thoughts?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's my thoughts:
1. Still on the Epic 4G I've never had any real lag.
2. Lack of ram can stall a device, but an excess of ram will not make it faster.
3. Mobile quad-cores are new and untested.
4. Android is not designed for quad-core processors.
5. The dual-core US version should easily match the quad-core international.
6. More ram means more easily multitasking/app-switching.
Check out this article.
muyoso said:
If it were an iPhone, then the quad core would be much better because apps will actually make use of the amazing gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
RandomKing said:
Here's my thoughts:
1. Still on the Epic 4G I've never had any real lag.
2. Lack of ram can stall a device, but an excess of ram will not make it faster.
3. Mobile quad-cores are new and untested.
4. Android is not designed for quad-core processors.
5. The dual-core US version should easily match the quad-core international.
6. More ram means more easily multitasking/app-switching.
Check out this article.
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Well the whole android cant handle 4 cores i think is false because its derived from Linux and i know those who use 4,6,8 core processor's and use Linux. so if android isn't im sure its all in code is all.
2. More Ram does mean things will run much faster. For Example: playing gta 4 with 4GB of DDR3 Ram @ 1333MHz plays decent but my pc setup that plays gta 4 with 8Gb of DDR2 Ram @ 1333MHz plays faster and loads faster but GPU does factor those speeds too so, in a sense you cant bottleneck them.
Extra RAM. It's going to be a while before the apps/software catches up with having two more cores. Meanwhile even old stuff can benefit from extra memory. Also see it as more future proof as you won't get the lame ass excuses from Samsung about it not having enough RAM to run whatever the latest release of Android is like we got with ICS and the Epic 4G.
XxLostSoulxX said:
1. Well the whole android cant handle 4 cores i think is false because its derived from Linux and i know those who use 4,6,8 core processor's and use Linux. so if android isn't im sure its all in code is all.
2. More Ram does mean things will run much faster. For Example: playing gta 4 with 4GB of DDR3 Ram @ 1333MHz plays decent but my pc setup that plays gta 4 with 8Gb of DDR2 Ram @ 1333MHz plays faster and loads faster but GPU does factor those speeds too so, in a sense you cant bottleneck them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You've misunderstood. Android can use 4 cores, of course. What it can't do is use them effectively in a way that creates any sort of advantage. But just as a mention, being derived from Linux source does not make it a full-fledged Linux OS by far.
And on your second point, again, you're comparing to a full PC operating system. Up until now, apps have been designed for phones with far less than 1GB of ram. It really depends on how you use your phone as to how much ram is needed. If you have a video editor running in the background, while playing pandora, and emulating Mario 64 you'll need more than simply browsing the web. But the processor, bus speeds, operating system, etc. all factor into how effectively more ram can be used. For Example: A 32 bit computer can't even use more than 4GB of ram. More ram does not simply mean 'much' more more speed, there are many other limiting factors. You can throw all the ram you want at a netbook, it will never run GTA4.
Off-Topic Edit: I vote 2GB ram over Quad-Core.
I guess then the only thing that will "improve", not that the int'l lacks of, is on the multitasking??
The few videos I saw, they were really fast but that's of course without all the apps that a normal user install. Like I have 38 apps install on my phone and most of the time I open between 9 to 13 apps everyday. Most of the time I have to close it...I guess more for the habit of doing it and of courses need it when playing games.
I read the answer and I kinda feel its true, maybe android is not yet ready for such hardware just yet, does it feels the hardware manufacture is going too fast compare to the software?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
lepapirriky said:
I guess then the only thing that will "improve", not that the int'l lacks of, is on the multitasking??
The few videos I saw, they were really fast but that's of course without all the apps that a normal user install. Like I have 38 apps install on my phone and most of the time I open between 9 to 13 apps everyday. Most of the time I have to close it...I guess more for the habit of doing it and of courses need it when playing games.
I read the answer and I kinda feel its true, maybe android is not yet ready for such hardware just yet, does it feels the hardware manufacture is going too fast compare to the software?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There will be improvement between the dual-core, faster processor, and more ram, rest assured!
Although I still recommend closing apps unnecessarily opened to save battery.
2 A15s > 4 A9s.
Also, the A15 use less power. I'd take the 2 GBs of RAM with the newest CPU anyday.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
theking_13 said:
2 A15s > 4 A9s. Also, the A15 use less power. I'd take the 2 GBs of RAM with the newest CPU anyday.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+9000
RandomKing said:
Here's my thoughts:
1. Still on the Epic 4G I've never had any real lag.
2. Lack of ram can stall a device, but an excess of ram will not make it faster.
3. Mobile quad-cores are new and untested.
4. Android is not designed for quad-core processors.
5. The dual-core US version should easily match the quad-core international.
6. More ram means more easily multitasking/app-switching.
Check out this article.
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't have any lag on our epic 4g's? What ROM are you running? I've tried every rom out there and am friends with several other rooted epic owners, none of our phones are remotely comparable to the modern phones like s2 and above.
I'd love to see a video of you opening and running netflix, facebook, web browsing on chrome and stock, or whatever if you have time because this blows my mind. i'm doing something horribly wrong.
Too bad we don't have a samsung developed a15
I don't know why but I don't like qualcomm chips
Also whenever I hear snapdragon I automatically think worse than hummingbird
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
I would take the dual core Krait hands down because it is designed from cortex a15. More instruction per clock is better than stacking cores which a phone doesn't even use. I think the 2 gb of ram has more performance advantage.
They also increased the memory bandwidth with new SOC by adding a new dual channel memory controller which the exynos had all along... They fixed alot of the shortcoming of snapdragon processor with the this gen product
gtuansdiamm said:
[...]Also whenever I hear snapdragon I automatically think worse than hummingbird[...]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's because Hummingbirds rape Snapdragons. See the following:
Either way if you want LTE at the moment you are stuck with dual core. So the 2GB of RAM is a nice enhancement. The EVO 1x ended up as two models the 1X which is quad core with no LTE and the 1XL which is dual core with LTE.
Sent from my PantechP4100 using xda premium
RandomKing said:
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where the hell did the epic4g or the iPhone 4 come into the question? My point was that iPhones actually make use of their gpu's better than android phones do, so the difference between the quad core and the dual core gs3 should be minimal in that regard, at least for a while.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
noobnl said:
I would take the dual core Krait hands down because it is designed from cortex a15.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is wrong.
The Krait is very much designed from the Cortex A9. While it shares similarities with the A15, it is not quite as powerful.
Krait is about 60% of the way between the A9 and A15.
jnadke said:
This is wrong.
The Krait is very much designed from the Cortex A9. While it shares similarities with the A15, it is not quite as powerful.
Krait is about 60% of the way between the A9 and A15.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, where'd you even get that from? Krait is slightly below an A15, Qualcomm derived their design from it. Yes, its not a true A15 core. But its the best right now in production.
Qualcomm has a license to mess around with ARMs designs and make their own CPUs, not just copy and slap an "A4" on them like Apple does.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
theking_13 said:
No, where'd you even get that from? Krait is slightly below an A15, Qualcomm derived their design from it. Yes, its not a true A15 core. But its the best right now in production.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting how someone "Likes" wrong information.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4940/qualcomm-new-snapdragon-s4-msm8960-krait-architecture
Designing a processor takes an extremely long amount of time. A15 was just barely released a few months ago. No way Krait was designed from it.
Now, Krait borrows some features from A15, but it's missing some important features as well. Krait does feature an extended instruction pipeline over the A9 (11 vs 9 cycles), but it's nowhere near as long as the A15 (15 cycles). Strictly speaking, lengthening a pipeline is less work than shortening it, hence Krait was not designed from the A15.
It's more likely Krait is an evolution of the Scorpion than anything.
As far as Apple, they have no place in this conversation, but if you must.... while they do have a "processor-only" license with ARM, they do farm out to a company to change some transistor signaling to make it more power efficient (they later bought them).
2 years ago, Apple bought Freescale, the only remaining PowerPC processor design company. (aside: The defense industry was largely concerned, as they rely on PowerPC for their power-efficient but high-speed applications). Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if they have an architecture license now so they can design their own ARM processors, Qualcomm-style. The main advantage would be integrating LTE radios like Qualcomm does.
Coincidentally it takes about 2 years to fully design a processor.
Bell points the finger at chipset makers - "The way it's implemented right now, Android does not make as effective use of multiple cores as it could, and I think - frankly - some of this work could be done by the vendors who create the SoCs, but they just haven't bothered to do it. Right now the lack of software effort by some of the folks who have done their hardware implementation is a bigger disadvantage than anything else."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you think about this guys?
He knows his stuff.
Sent from my GT-I9300
i would take it with a pinch of salt, though there are not many apps that takes advantage of multi core processor lets see what intel will tell when they have thier own dual core processor out in the market
Pretty good valid arguments for the most part.
I mostly agree though, but I think android makes good use of up to 2 cores. Anything more than that it doesn't at all.
There is a huge chunk of the article missing too.
Sent from my GT-I9300
full article
jaytana said:
What do you think about this guys?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think they should all be covered in honey and then thrown into a pit full of bears and Honey bees. And the bears should have like knives ductaped to their feet and the bees stingers should be dipped in chilli sauce.
Reckless187 said:
I think they should all be covered in honey and then thrown into a pit full of bears and Honey bees. And the bears should have like knives ductaped to their feet and the bees stingers should be dipped in chilli sauce.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow, saying Android isn't ready for multip-core deserves such treatment? or this guy had committed more serious crime previously?
Actually is a totally fail but in android 5 I think it's can be solved
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA
This was a serious problem on desktop Windows OS as well back when multi cores first starting coming out. I remember having to download patches for certain games and in other cases, having to set the CPU affinity to run certain games/apps with only one core so that it wouldn't freeze up. I am sure Android will move forward with multi-core support in the future.
simollie said:
wow, saying Android isn't ready for multip-core deserves such treatment? or this guy had committed more serious crime previously?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a harsh but fair punishment imo. They need to sort that sh*t out as its totally unacceptable or they're gonna get a taste of the Cat o Nine Tails.
Android kernel is based on Linux. So this is suggesting the Linux kernel is not built to support multi-core either. Not true. There is a reason the SGS3 gets 5000+ in Quadrant, the the San Diego only gets 3000+. And the San Diego is running 200MHz faster.
Just look at the blue bar here. http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/31/orange-san-diego-benchmarks/ . My SGS3 got over 2.5K on just CPU alone.
What Intel said was true. Android is multicore aware but the os and apps aren't taking advantage of it. When this user disabled 2 cores on the HTC one x it made no difference at all in anything other than benchmarks.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=26094852&postcount=3
Disabling the CPU cores will do nothing to the GPU, hence still getting 60 FPS. And you say that like you expected to see a difference. Those games may not be particularly CPU intensive, thats why they continue to run fine. They will more than likely be GPU limited.
Android is not a difficult OS to run, thats why it can run on the G1, or AOKP can run smooth as silk on my i9000. If it can run smooth as silk on one 2yr old 1GHz chip, how COULD it go faster on a next-gen chip like in the SGS3 or HOX? In terms of just using the phone, ive not experienced any lag at all.
If youre buying a phone with dual/quad CPU cores, and only expecting to use it as a phone (i.e, not play demanding games/benchmark/mod/what ever else), of course you wont see any advantage, and you may feel cheated. And if you disable those extra cores, and still only use it as a phone, of course you wont notice any difference.
If a pocket calculator appears to calculate 1+1 instantly, and a HOX also calculates 1+1 instantly, Is the pocket calculator awesome, is the HOX not using all its cores, or is what it is being asked to do simply not taxing enough to use all the CPU power the HOX has got?
I've been hearing this for some time now and is one of the reasons I didn't care that we weren't getting the quad core version of the GS3
916x10 said:
I've been hearing this for some time now and is one of the reasons I didn't care that we weren't getting the quad core version of the GS3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay folks... firstly linux kernel, which android is based on, is aware of multicore (its obvious) but most the applications are not aware, thats true!.. but is not the android which to blame neither the SoC makers. This is like the flame intel made that they wanted to say their single core can do faster to a dual core arm LOL, (maybe intel will make 1 core has 4 threads or 8 threads) <- imposibruuu for now dunno later
you will notice the core usage while playing HD video that require cpu to decode (better core decode fastly)... and im not sure single core intel does better to arm dual core.. ~haha~
but for average user the differences are not noticable.. if intel aiming for this market yes that make sense... but android user are above average user.. they will optimize its phone eventually IMO
What they have failed to disclose is which SoC they did their test on and their methodology. Not much reason to doubt what he's saying but you gotta remember that Intel only have a single core mobile SoC currently and are aiming to get a foothold in the mobile device ecosystem so part of this could be throwing salt on competing products as it's something that should be taken care of by Google optimising the CPU scheduling algorithms of their OS.
The problem is in the chip set. I currently attend SUNY Oswego and a professor of mine Doug Lea works on many concurrent structures. He is currently working on the ARM spec sheet that is used to make chips. The bench marks that he has done shows that no matter how lucky or unlucky you get, the time that it takes to do a concurrent process is about the same where on desktop chips there is a huge difference between best case and worse case. The blame falls on the people that make the chips for now. They need to change how it handles concurrent operations and then if android still cant use multi-core processors then it falls on the shoulders of google.
that is my two cents on the whole situation. Just finished concurrency with Doug and after many talks this is my current opinion.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA
Flynny75 said:
Disabling the CPU cores will do nothing to the GPU, hence still getting 60 FPS. And you say that like you expected to see a difference. Those games may not be particularly CPU intensive, thats why they continue to run fine. They will more than likely be GPU limited.
Android is not a difficult OS to run, thats why it can run on the G1, or AOKP can run smooth as silk on my i9000. If it can run smooth as silk on one 2yr old 1GHz chip, how COULD it go faster on a next-gen chip like in the SGS3 or HOX? In terms of just using the phone, ive not experienced any lag at all.
If youre buying a phone with dual/quad CPU cores, and only expecting to use it as a phone (i.e, not play demanding games/benchmark/mod/what ever else), of course you wont see any advantage, and you may feel cheated. And if you disable those extra cores, and still only use it as a phone, of course you wont notice any difference.
If a pocket calculator appears to calculate 1+1 instantly, and a HOX also calculates 1+1 instantly, Is the pocket calculator awesome, is the HOX not using all its cores, or is what it is being asked to do simply not taxing enough to use all the CPU power the HOX has got?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't mean daily task doesn't need the cpu power. When I put my sgs 3 in power save mode which cut back the cpu to 800mHz, I feel the lag instantly when scrolling around and navigating the internet. So I can conclude that performance per core is still much more important than number of cores. There isn't any performance difference either with the dual core sensation xe running beside the single core sensational xl.
The hardware needs to be out for developers to have incentive to make use of it. It's not like Android was built from the ground up to utilize 4 cores. That said, once it hits enough hand it and software running in it will be made to utilize the new hardware.