Hi,
I was wondering if the 2 CPU's are working simultaneously together? or I'st just 1?., I'm using FLEXREAPER X10 ICS 4.0.3 . Sometimes I get screen glitches .... when My tab is trying to sleep and I touched the screen. Also...when I try the benchmark it only say's the CPU1 processing speed... & etc. Also when I'm browsing in the Playstore the screen animation is a bit lag... Can some1 enlighten me...or is there an app for this? than can force 2 cpu to work all the time together.?
Yes, both cores are enabled at all times. But no, you cannot make an application use both cores unless the application was designed to do so.
FLEXREAPER X10 ICS 4.0.3 base a leak rom ICS, not a stable rom, so it has some problems.
Your benchmark is correct.
There are NOT 2 CPU's. There is only one CPU, with 2 cores. It doesn't process two applications at once, it CAN process two threads of the same application at the same time. Think of it as this: two CPUs would be two people writing on different pieces of paper.A single CPU with two cores would be one person writing with both hands at the same time. He can only write on the same piece of paper, but it's faster then it would be if he was writing with only one hand.
Note: this is not related to multi-task. Multi-tasking works based on processing a little bit of each app at a time, so altough it may seen that both are running at the same time, it is not.
Most apps are not designed to work with threads though, so there's your (actually, our) problem. But this is not an A500 problem, it applies to any multi-core processor based devices ou there (including desktops).
danc135 said:
There are NOT 2 CPU's. There is only one CPU, with 2 cores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Essentially true, but...
It doesn't process two applications at once
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
False. Two cores is just two CPUs on the same die.
Thanks for the response guys... I'm getting bit confused with this "multi-core processor".... I was expecting that it is fast to no lag, during browsing apps in my lib,switching application, even browsing in The PlAYSTORE". So It's correct to say that multi-core processor is a bit of a waste if an app can't use it's full/all cores potential? Also if the UI of an OS can't use all cores at the same time?
Dual Core, Dual CPU....
Not entirely, because if the kernel is capable of multi-threading, then it can use one core to run services while another is running the main application. The UI is only another application running on top of the kernel...
The only difference between a dual core Intel cpu and a dual core tegra 2 is the instruction set and basic capabilities, otherwise they can be thought of as essentially the same animal. The kernel, which is the core of the OS, handles the multi-tasking, but android has limited multi-tasking capabilities for Applications. Even so, services that run in the background are less of a hindrance on a dual core cpu than a single core one, and more and more applications are being written to take advantage of multiple cores.
Just have a bunch of widgets running on your UI, and you are looking at multi-tasking and multi-threading. Which are both better on multi-core processors.
A multiple core cpu are not more then one processor stacked on one die. They thread and load balance thru software.Applications MUST BE AWARE Of multi core cpus to take advantage of the dual cores.
A multiple Processor computer has a 3rd processor chip on the main board. this chip balances the load on hardware. this does not add over head on the processors. as on a Dual multi CORE CHIP. has a much higher load overhead.
SO Many people confuse the two. This is due to how the companies market the muticore cpu devices .
So a application that can not thread itself on a multi core chip will run in one of the cpu cores. a threaded app can well guess?
a dual Processor computer can run non multi thread aware app or program on two cores..
Its quite simply complicated..
You can throw all the hardware you want at a system. In the end, if the software sucks (not multi-threaded, poorly optimized, bad at resource management, etc...), it's still going to perform bad.
Dual core doesn't mean it can run one applicaton at twice speed, it means that it can run two applications at full speed, given that they're not threaded. Android's largely meant to run one application foregrounded, and since they can't magically make every application multi-threaded, you won't be seeing the benefits of multiple cores as much as you will on a more traditional platform.
Also, a dual-core tegra 2 is good, but only in comparison to other ARM processors (and even then, it's starting to show its age.) It's going to perform poorly compared to a full x86 computer, even one that's older.
netham45 said:
You can throw all the hardware you want at a system. In the end, if the software sucks (not multi-threaded, poorly optimized, bad at resource management, etc...), it's still going to perform bad.
Dual core doesn't mean it can run one applicaton at twice speed, it means that it can run two applications at full speed, given that they're not threaded. Android's largely meant to run one application foregrounded, and since they can't magically make every application multi-threaded, you won't be seeing the benefits of multiple cores as much as you will on a more traditional platform.
Also, a dual-core tegra 2 is good, but only in comparison to other ARM processors (and even then, it's starting to show its age.) It's going to perform poorly compared to a full x86 computer, even one that's older.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is so true . With the exception of a TRUE Server dual OR Quad processor computer.. There is a special on board chip that will thread application calls to balance the load for non threaded programs and games..My first dual processor computer was a amd MP3000 back when dual cpu computers started to be within user price ranges. Most applications/programs did not multi thread .
And yes as far as computer speed and performance you will not gain any from this. but only will feel less lag when running several programs at once.a 2.8 ghz dual processor computer still runs at 2.8 not double that.
erica_renee said:
With the exception of a TRUE Server dual OR Quad processor computer.. There is a special on board chip that will thread application calls to balance the load for non threaded programs and games..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually this is incorrect. All such decisions are left to the OS's own scheduler, for multiple reasons: the CPU cannot know what kind of tasks it is to run, what should be given priority under which conditions and so on, like e.g. on a desktop PC interactive, user-oriented and in-focus applications and tasks are usually given more priority than background-tasks, whereas on a server one either gives all tasks similar priority or handles tasks priorities based on task-grouping. Not to mention realtime operating system which have entirely different requirements altogether.
If it was left to the CPU the performance gains would be terribly limited and could not be adjusted for different kinds of tasks and even operating systems.
(Not that anyone cares, I just thought to pop in and rant a little...)
Self correction
I said a multi-core processor only runs threads from the same process. That is wrong (thanks to my Computer Architecture professor for misleading me). It can run multiple threads from different processes, which would constitute true parallel processing. It's just better to stick with same process threads because of shared memory within the processor. Every core has its own cache memory (level 1 caches), and shared, on-die level 2 caches.
It all depends on the OS scheduler, really.
With ICS (and future Android versions), I hope the scheduler will improve to get the best of multi-core.
In the end though, it won't matter if applications aren't multi-thread (much harder to code). What I mean is, performance will be better, but not as better as it could be if developers used a lot of multi-threading.
To answer hatyrei's question, yes, it is a waste, in the sense that it has too much untapped potential.
Related
First the G2, now the Lexicon:
http://phandroid.com/2010/09/20/htc-lexikon-looks-to-be-next-verizon-droid/
Sure the clock speed is lower, but reports are saying that the processor is actually faster. And the battery usage will probably be a lot better too.
I'm a sucker for performance and have always said I'd stick with the N1 until the next CPUs come out. Finally... Has the next era in mobile CPU's finally begun?
Next era, no. 1.5+single cores, then dual core.
Paul22000 said:
First the G2, now the Lexicon:
http://phandroid.com/2010/09/20/htc-lexikon-looks-to-be-next-verizon-droid/
Sure the clock speed is lower, but reports are saying that the processor is actually faster. And the battery usage will probably be a lot better too.
I'm a sucker for performance and have always said I'd stick with the N1 until the next CPUs come out. Finally... Has the next era in mobile CPU's finally begun?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's faster 'cause the gpu is a logically separate device. I expect linpacks to be somewhat slower, but quadrants to be faster. How's it going?
"Next era"? No. 7x30 isn't a direct successor to 8x50, having the same CPU but different GPU and some other internal differences (for example, LPDDR2 support appears on Github). Just read Qualcomm's own product description:
http://www.qualcomm.com/products_services/chipsets/snapdragon.html
It's called "second generation" because of HSPA+, much better GPU, 45nm process, additional video codecs support, newer GPS, and some other bits and pieces. It's an overall better device. But if you count only the CPU area - it loses to Nexus. Same CPU, clocked lower. 8x55 is equal in CPU power.
If you're looking for the real next generation in power - look for 3rd generation devices, with dual core CPUs.
Jack_R1 said:
"Next era"? No. 7x30 isn't a direct successor to 8x50, having the same CPU but different GPU and some other internal differences (for example, LPDDR2 support appears on Github). Just read Qualcomm's own product description:
http://www.qualcomm.com/products_services/chipsets/snapdragon.html
It's called "second generation" because of HSPA+, much better GPU, 45nm process, additional video codecs support, newer GPS, and some other bits and pieces. It's an overall better device. But if you count only the CPU area - it loses to Nexus. Same CPU, clocked lower. 8x55 is equal in CPU power.
If you're looking for the real next generation in power - look for 3rd generation devices, with dual core CPUs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1. I concur 100% with what he said.
keep in mind that pure clock speed does not mean something is faster... the 45nm die shrink also means they increased efficiency in a lot of areas and have allowed for more cache on the die...
think of it this way, i built a dual core PC back in 2006 that ran at 2.8ghz but it was like 90nm tech... if i buy a new dual core today, with a 45nm tech but same speed it would blow the old proc out of the water...
I really doubt dual core procs in phones will make a huge leap like everyone is expecting... I mean, how often do you run 4-5 apps simultaneously that are all very stressful on the CPU? the two most stressful things you prolly do on your phone is watch a movie (encoding video is stressful) or play a video game like on your PSX emulator... do you ever watch a movie and play a game at the same time? Stupid question right... the basic everyday performances are not going to see any huge improvements like everyone expects...
if they want to improve phones they should stick to single core and have a dedicated gpu or go dual and prioritize one of the cores to graphical processing...
oh i forgot to mention the only way you will see strong software performance improvements from dual core is if Google rewrites virtually the entire code for Android to make use of multiple cores... so while your phone might be dual core, your OS wont care since it virtually cannot use it correctly... better pray the manufacturer updates the OS for you cuz the N1 is single core and guess whos getting all the updates for the next year or so?
Pure clock speed on exactly the same CPU is directly correlated with CPU speed. Yes, there are some things that impact benchmarks like memory bandwidth etc, but we're not talking about them - and even if we did, the difference still wouldn't cover. 65nm vs 45nm means NOTHING - it doesn't matter, what process the CPU was built on, it matters how it functions. We're talking about EXACTLY THE SAME CPU, can you keep that in mind, please? Thanks. CPU cache almost doesn't matter, since L1 is limited anyway, and L2 is big enough anyway, the increases add a bare couple of percents to CPU speed, which is nothing compared to 20% speed loss due to clocking.
Thanks for your smart suggestions on "improving phones". I guess you might be one of the VPs at Qualcomm. Or maybe you aren't. I'll skip your even smarter comments about "dedicated GPU" etc. I guess you probably need to google the word "SoC" first and see what it means.
And you should probably educate yourself about multi-threaded applications, and also remember that Linux kernel (which is running on Android) is built to support multiple cores, and Dalvik VM (which is running the apps) might very well be multi-threaded too.
Adding a second core with load balancing OS results in ~35-40% performance increase (depends on some things). And ironically, when you compare "your old 90nm core" and "newer 45nm cores", saying that the newer cores clocked similarly "would blow the old out of the water", you're actually comparing multi-core vs single-core CPUs (with some internal speed-ups, too, but the most significant performance boost comes from additional cores).
Jack_R1 said:
65nm vs 45nm means NOTHING
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the 45nm process at least have better efficiency due to smaller gates?
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!
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.
Will it be possible to have 2 cpus on the Ara.. It will be a beast if it could .. ( p.s. sorry if i have mistakes! )
51r said:
Will it be possible to have 2 cpus on the Ara.. It will be a beast if it could .. ( p.s. sorry if i have mistakes! )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I highly doubt it, I reckon the device would heat up so much and consume so much battery. Plus I think it will take a much longer time for two mobile cpu's to play nice with each other
I doubt it. It'd be cool if you could though but I still see no point as to why.
Yes, you could. The problem is that Android is not written to really use those two processors (its only recently getting support to use dual cores, much less quad) so it would just be a waste of energy and space.
good post
riahc3 said:
Yes, you could. The problem is that Android is not written to really use those two processors (its only recently getting support to use dual cores, much less quad) so it would just be a waste of energy and space.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was going to suggest dual core. You beat me to it. Your post is good info; just like not jumping on a 64 bit bandwagon before devices have 8 or more GB of ram [not storage].
im sure it would be great to have two cpus but i feel like all that power would go to waste im sure it could bring more development but still what are you going to do with two cpu's at the current clock speeds we have now? the newest kindle fire is more powerful than my computer im sure quad cores are quite enough for phones cant believe they make octacores its a huge waste.
Dual processors in Project Ara devices.
Actually, from a functional standpoint, I see no reason to have dual CPUs. Android can't make use of a dual processor system, and if it could, what benefit would it provide in real time?
The system as it is, is too inefficient to handle the CPU commands, support the current demand of a dual CPU device.
With a dual CPU device, you also need to design additional power control regulation and filtering, additional battery support and ASIC devices to control the processor when demands are not being called upon, this adds a lot to the base architecture, and not really a financial benefit for a healthy profit margin. When you have finite board real estate for each individual module, you can't simply 'design-in' additional power control circuitry and maintain the same, or similar board dimensions, something has to give.
If we had everything we desired in a single device, I guarantess that device would be dimensionally unusable, the form factor would grow, costs would multiply, and with every feature added as 'standard', you would need to drag around a automotive-sized battery to operate all the options and features.
Personally, I prefer a robust Rf section, and then a modular antenna system that uses PIN diodes so I can select internal or external antennas if I desire. Next, I would like to have Bluetooth access to the entire phone system and file structure, so I can, in essence, 'clone' my phones parameters in a lab environment for testing applications and RF system compatibility.
The RF module should come standard with ALL known and used modulations, bands and coding, such as CDMA, GSM, WCDMA2000, TDMA, CQPSK and even 450 bands for Euro networks. Heck, I'd even like to see P25 thrown in for good measure, along with LTR and EDACS and OpenSky! ( I work with a LOT of RF radio networks, including trunked systems, so of course, I would love to have them all at my fingertips.
Off-Network communications is always a desire when you are in areas not served by cell sites, and point to point comms. is always useful.
Instead of sacrificing capabilities, how about increasing usefulness instead?
dual, quad, octa or more cpu cores are fit in one module i guess and yes android can't make use of dual cpu like servers.
2 cpus 1 phone
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Maybe utilize a 4.0 GHz overclocked x64 cpu?
Since Google just helped develop a new CPU for Ara this may be possible now
I could see 2 cpus as like an either or situation. Heavy load. Use the one for performance. Screen off or battery saving mode. Use a decent single core thats geared towards battery life.
The thing about Project Ara is the aim seems to be to bring smartphones to the level of customization that we see in PCs. We could very well see some manufacturers who get on board with Ara eventually make SoCs that support dual processors if they feel there is a demand for it. Another interesting thought is if there comes about a project where we could design our own SoCs. Technically it's already possible if you are a hardware developer. I looked into what it would take to do it once, and from what I found it looks like you have to be a hardware developer, own your own company, and form a partnership with a chipset maker(I.E. Intel).
Current apps don't even use all 4 cores properly let alone adding a second cpu
Sent from my GT-N7100 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Perhaps software in the system settings could detect the second cpu and allow you to allocate more/less power to separate processes and assign different apps to different cpus.
Sent from my GT-S7560M using XDA Free mobile app
I think that 2 cores is possible. 2 CPU depends on whether android can run it
------------------------------------------------
Projectaratalk.com - a forum for google project ara users and developers
Since the Ara use Tegra x1 ,there's a great chance it has 2 cores.
Imagine how powerfull this phone will get in 1-2 years .. :thumbup::thumbup:
Sent from my GT-I8730 using XDA Free mobile app
I know the question contains a little of ignorance, but idk much about windows kernels and how works the OS en general, but, it is posible that a android phone with, idk, for example a snapdragon processor with an arch of ARM been used as more CPU processing power to the computer? Im just proposing it theoretically
And also by the way if someone could explain me what are the cores of the CPU and if it has anything related to the question thanks you
No. It will not work. Cores of the CPU are like brains in Humans, more cores = more processing power. Android uses the Linux kernel and Windows...the Windows kernel. Two differant beast. It would be like Cats and Dogs agreeing on the best place to go poo....it won't happen.
A CPU, or Central Processing Unit, is the part of the computer that does the actual work - performing operations. Modern CPUs have multiple cores, where each core is able to work on a different part of the operation. In a mobile context, multiple cores are also used to provide a balance between performance and power saving; depending on the CPU, there are generally 2 or more "little" cores that prioritize efficiency over performance; 2 or more "mid" cores that provide more processing power when the "little" cores aren't up to the task; and 1 or 2 "big" cores that provide the best performance but use the most power. When someone talks about "throttling" in a kernel, they're talking about the runtime mechanism that decides what cores a CPU will use under given load conditions.
There are multiple different CPU architectures, and as far as I know, it's not possible to parallel them - you can't use an ARM64 CPU in parallel with an Intel x64, even though they're both 64 bit. The reason for this is different architectures use different basic instructions and scheduling, so the amount of code that would need to go into a kernel to make different types work together would slow the system down and make the whole endeavor pointless, unless you're working with a really large scale operation.
If you look at multi-CPU systems, you'll see that everything from Xeon servers to supercomputers all use the same types of CPU to simplify interconnects, as well as the ability to use one kernel.
It's worth mentioning that there are some projects that do make use of different platforms - for example, SETI @ Home uses a network of Internet connected computers to create a sort of supercomputer. Botnets do the same sort of thing. The difference here is that these systems aren't paralleled, and they work at the application level, so they can only use a certain amount of the client system's resources.
V0latyle said:
A CPU, or Central Processing Unit, is the part of the computer that does the actual work - performing operations. Modern CPUs have multiple cores, where each core is able to work on a different part of the operation. In a mobile context, multiple cores are also used to provide a balance between performance and power saving; depending on the CPU, there are generally 2 or more "little" cores that prioritize efficiency over performance; 2 or more "mid" cores that provide more processing power when the "little" cores aren't up to the task; and 1 or 2 "big" cores that provide the best performance but use the most power. When someone talks about "throttling" in a kernel, they're talking about the runtime mechanism that decides what cores a CPU will use under given load conditions.
There are multiple different CPU architectures, and as far as I know, it's not possible to parallel them - you can't use an ARM64 CPU in parallel with an Intel x64, even though they're both 64 bit. The reason for this is different architectures use different basic instructions and scheduling, so the amount of code that would need to go into a kernel to make different types work together would slow the system down and make the whole endeavor pointless, unless you're working with a really large scale operation.
If you look at multi-CPU systems, you'll see that everything from Xeon servers to supercomputers all use the same types of CPU to simplify interconnects, as well as the ability to use one kernel.
It's worth mentioning that there are some projects that do make use of different platforms - for example, SETI @ Home uses a network of Internet connected computers to create a sort of supercomputer. Botnets do the same sort of thing. The difference here is that these systems aren't paralleled, and they work at the application level, so they can only use a certain amount of the client system's resources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whoa ok! Cool thanks for your explanation and time. I understood most of the reply so thanks for answering me question!
Have a good day
7zLT said:
Whoa ok! Cool thanks for your explanation and time. I understood most of the reply so thanks for answering me question!
Have a good day
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem. Here is a Wiki article that may provide a more concise explanation. Turns out I was wrong about instruction sets, at least concerning AMD APUs.
The bottom line is...Yes, it's absolutely possible to use multiple different systems to provide more processing power than just one. But, unless those systems are specifically designed to work in parallel with other systems, it would be a bit more complicated to get everything to work together, and the end result wouldn't necessarily be faster. If you're enterprising enough, you could set up an application on your computer as well as your phone that uses your phone's CPU to perform operations, but it wouldn't be easy.
Oh!
Ok, thanks for the references
The Northbridge chipset has limited bandwidth and is optimized to work with specific cpu's. Integrating at this level be ineffective at best even if you could get it to work because of the Northbridge bandwidth limitations.
A dual processor board is the one that you wanted, originally used mostly for servers they are also used in high end workstations. Most games are designed to run on 4 cores so it may not yield much. Some 3D rendering softwares and such are designed to take advantage of dual processor mobos. Again designed to work with a specific processor family like the Xeon series ie matched processors.