Related
thanx
no way. s100's processor is 412 Mhz, and 9100's processor is officially 195, but actually is 185. so, s100 is twice as fast as 9100 :!:
U have to remember that the 9100 is a dual core processor.
so?
Mhz does not usually mean faster. Take Intel and AMD for example. Even though Intel has higher clock speed, it is not faster than AMD.
Just to drive that point home, at work a client started an unofficial benchmarking of systems, and results include
- an AMD Athlon64 3000+ at 2GHz, single core, single CPU... let's say this machine's speed is '1'
- an Intel Core Duo T2400 at 1.83GHz, dual core, single CPU... it's almost 2.5 times as fast.
That said, the OMAP may be dual core, but it's not 'dual core' like desktop/notebook processors. The two cores each specialize in different parts. You might notice that, for example, it's easier to multitask on these chips - while video playback won't see any performance boost and is likely to be slower.
Depending on your needs, your mileage may vary.
Omap 850 go 195 Mhz because it's downgraded by HTC for safety reason (they reply me like that) Processor is only 200 Mhz but for radio is performed by another chip.... i have both and Wizard isn't speed as Magician.
I find Sony Ericsson P900 at 153mhz to be much faster and responsive than any XDA. Although that's probably more to do with Microsoft's sketchy OS than the processor.
I think the Wizard overclocked to 264mhz is much fater at moving around the OS than a BlueAngel at 400mhz, but like someone said above, it's not so good at video playback.
re
in this case, my CPU is set to - 264MHZ are there any problems
to stay on this MHZs /battery, cpu lifetime, errors and accidental
shut downs/ ?
To compare use benchmarks (TCPMP for example)
darkheroz said:
in this case, my CPU is set to - 264MHZ are there any problems
to stay on this MHZs /battery, cpu lifetime, errors and accidental
shut downs/ ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi most people find it more stable at 240Mhz omapclock speed (260Mhz true as measured by sktools) but if it is stable for you - thats cool.
Hey guys this old x-scale vs omap thing has been bashed out numerous times!! Please for our sanity no more!! :wink: Anyhow looks like x-scale is being dropped by intel.
Hi,
I have seen benchmarks on this site, but I dont know in what topic.
In summary, the wizard is almost twice as fast as the magician, and the xda executer is twice as fast as the wizard, I have seen those benchmarks but I dont have the link. Also my wizard proves day after day that it is not slow at all, any game or CPU intensive program runs smoothly just the way you like.
So, dont be misled by the frequency measure, it is unfair to compare two different architectures only with regard to clock speed only, even a small improvement in the cache technology, or the pipeline design could bring massive performance advantages to the system's processor performance.
Regards,
Mohammad
no, the wizard is slower than the magician. i have both so i know. one thing is the processor even though it is dual core (one for pda, one for phone). the other reason is the way the os manages memory, with wm5 using persistent storage rather than having things ready on ram. this is running both without overclock that is.
This is not neccesserly true, maybe wm2003 OS is much lighter than WM5, its like comparing two identical desktop computers one is running windows 95, the other is running windows2000 and claiming that the one that runs windows 95 is faster. From my point of view (as a computer engineer) Benchmarking is the only trustful way to tell.
Another thing is that dual coring the processor has removed the overhead of managing the phone hardware by the main core, and this is definitely an advantage!!!
Another plus for the OMAP processor is that it consumes less power, and we all know that the most important resource for handheld devices is power, afterall, if you want to compare the actual CPU speed you have to run benchmarks on both devices, regardless of how the magician seems to be faster.
So lets search for benchmarks and put what we get here.
-------------------------------------------------
Update:
I found the benchmarks, enjoy!!
http://forum.xda-developers.com/viewtopic.php?t=27512&highlight=benchmarks
i have my 9100 from today (used a s100 for one year.)
the 9100 reacts quicker to start,browsing...
only TT loading takes a few seconds longer
Hi there!
I am in the hunt for a 7"-8" Android 4/4.1 tablet. Currently my choices are the new Acer Iconia A110 (because of a microSD card slot), the Motorola Xoom 2 Media Edition (because of the bigger screen, excellent build and virtual surround sound), the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 (again with a slightly bigger screen, a microSD card slot and an excellent AMOLED screen) and the top dog Google Nexus 7. But i am more interested with the Nexus 7 in terms of "Is it worth the investment" even on a small screen?. I will be using the thing mainly for checking email/news/weather, the usual Youtube, WIkipedia, Twitter, watching movies and also gaming. So, i'd like to ask:
1, Is the actual GPU dual or single channel? And what's the frequency? Does it matter?
2. Is the 1.3Ghz the base CPU speed? Or is it underclocked like what Apple is doing with its tabs?
3. Aside from connecting a mice or keyboard what other stuff can the Bluetooth 3.0 standard do?
4. Is it capable of wireless file transfer to & from a Macbook?
5. I'm aware that it doesn't have Flash but can i still install them via the Google Play?
6. Are they stereo speakers? Capable of surround sound? (some sound issues in some models i heard)
Please advice. Thanks.
gino_76ph said:
Hi there!
I am in the hunt for a 7"-8" Android 4/4.1 tablet. Currently my choices are the new Acer Iconia A110 (because of a microSD card slot), the Motorola Xoom 2 Media Edition (because of the bigger screen, excellent build and virtual surround sound), the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 (again with a slightly bigger screen, a microSD card slot and an excellent AMOLED screen) and the top dog Google Nexus 7. But i am more interested with the Nexus 7 in terms of "Is it worth the investment" even on a small screen?. I will be using the thing mainly for checking email/news/weather, the usual Youtube, WIkipedia, Twitter, watching movies and also gaming. So, i'd like to ask:
1, Is the actual GPU dual or single channel? And what's the frequency? Does it matter?
2. Is the 1.3Ghz the base CPU speed? Or is it underclocked like what Apple is doing with its tabs?
3. Aside from connecting a mice or keyboard what other stuff can the Bluetooth 3.0 standard do?
4. Is it capable of wireless file transfer to & from a Macbook?
5. I'm aware that it doesn't have Flash but can i still install them via the Google Play?
6. Are they stereo speakers? Capable of surround sound? (some sound issues in some models i heard)
Please advice. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Its either dual or quad I think clocked at 450 or something(can be over clocked)
2. Underclocked I think(prime has same CPU but at 1.5)
3. Don't know
4. There's a few apps that do this
5. No you have to sideload
6. Stereo and don't know about surround sound
Sent from my Jelly Nexus S
Would it matter if a tablet has dual or single channel GPU? Does it matter if the wifi is dual or single band? WIll it actually help make the graphics "better" and surfing the net faster?
Would you trust Acer when it comes to build quality of its tablets compared to say samsung or Motorola?
1. Not sure(I think I heard about it being overclocked somewhere)
2. Default is 1.2ghz, can be overclocked up to 1.5ghz.
3. For example: File transfer. If you root you can also use it as a PlayStation controller with BluePutDroid.
4. There are a number of ways to do this, I would recommend AirDroid.
5. To get flash(no root required):
A. Go to settings->security and enable unknown sources.
B. Download and install the flash apk on your device from here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1763805
C. Get a browser that supports flash like boat browser(from play store).
6. Stereo, probably not surround sound.
(Second post)
Not sure what dual channel GPU means to tell you the truth.
I believe the nexus 7 has dual channel WiFi, using speed test app the speed reaches or goes above my maximum speed from the other end of the house.
gino_76ph said:
1, Is the actual GPU dual or single channel? And what's the frequency? Does it matter?
2. Is the 1.3Ghz the base CPU speed? Or is it underclocked like what Apple is doing with its tabs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no such thing as a single or dual channel GPU. Channels refers to the RAM. It is a 12 core GPU.
1.3ghz is the maximum clock speed of the specific CPU used, the T30L. It is not underclocked.
this is the truth after reading some ****.no single or dual gpu.12 core has.channel intended only for the ram.this is the minor tegra3 out there,less freq. clock but high clocked ram and not the same as t30 packed.begginnning with the fact the clock cpu freq. is overcloccable without problems,the ram packed on n7 is IMHO better than ad example tf201 or htconex one's
Are you guys certain there is no such thing as single or dual channel CPU?
And If the GPU clocked speed is 1.3Ghz would it mean that there is 1.3Ghz on each of the 12 cores?
gino_76ph said:
Are you guys certain there is no such thing as single or dual channel CPU?
And If the GPU clocked speed is 1.3Ghz would it mean that there is 1.3Ghz on each of the 12 cores?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no you are wrong man.the CPU(4cores) is clocked at 1.3 ghz (4 cores running) and 1.5 (or 1.4 i don't remeber)in single mode (1 core running)
the GPU (12cores)is clocked at 416 mhz by default
apart them,if you flash a custom kernel,this Soc can reach (depending on tab,they aren't exactly the same chips)1.8\2.0 ghz for the CPU,and 484\520\600\650\700\750 with the GPU (here depending on tab as well)
I see. So, it is fast?
As a side question would it be practical to buy a new or latest tablet like the Nexus 7 than an older (and equally good in its own) say Galaxy Tab 7.7 or the Xoom 2 Media Edition? What i'm trying to ask here is the "problem" of compatibility with apps and games if a tab has an older GPU in them.
Would that be an issue or not?
yes,sure it's fast!a little bit faster than others with same chip.i do you an example regards the last question.
there are peoples with old gpus,that continue playing hd games with these old gpu without problems (not all games working,but many of them!).an example is the galaxy nexus that i own,it 's packed with a good cpu and a old gpu,that we found also on galaxy s,nexus s ecc,but honestly i never found a game that doesn't work for the odl gpu.i have also tegra2 devices,no prob with games,surely a tegra3 is more powerfull and you can play games with full effect enabled without problems.all apps works,not depending to gpu,but only the version of OS at least.
The Tegra 3 SoC only has a single channel memory. Specs are 1GB RAM of DDR3L -1333 MHz (Low Voltage) giving a total memory bandwidth of 5.3 GB/s, is this super fast, no, but it is more than than sufficient for the Nexus 7 display resolution.
To the OP, don't get stressed about specs, especially if you're 100% sure what they actually mean. The important part is user experience of the Nexus 7, due in part to Android Jelly Bean, it is smooth and enjoyable, it can play all the latest games well, I also run Playstation & N64 emulators on it without issue.
Finally, The Nexus 7 is fully unlockable, so it has great developer support on XDA and other forums, which is 50% of the device's appeal in my eyes. If you can wait a few weeks, the rumour is a 32 GB model will replace the current 16 GB version.
If you can manage to find a Nexus 7 used on Craigs or Ebay, I would do it. I got my perfect condition barely used 16gb for $160 from a buyer's remorse user on Craigslist. For this price I find the tablet to be very good. I would have a harder time paying the $250 plus tax in store for the same unit. Not that it's not worth the $250 but already owning a Galaxy S3 phone, it's too much of the same at the end of the day, much like I experienced when I had a iPhone and iPad together.
The Nexus7 for me is a great grab and go device for quick browsing, game playing, weather checking, etc.
If you've got to have the latest and fastest specs, the Tegra3 is getting dated already and you'd want to find something with a Qualcomm S4 chip (even this isn't really faster than Tegra3). Supposedly the OMAP 4470 in the bigger Fire HD and the Nook HD+ might be a little faster for more money.
i doubt 4470 it's faster than tegra3 (all 3 variant)..it's basically a 4460 with a bit more clock freq.,same 45nm tecnology and with a faster gpu (with dedicated 2d hw chipset).they claim it's up to 2 times more faster than sgx540.if it's true,i think that tegra3 is better (not for the quad).Anyway i have to agree with all the things sad in previous posts.OP don't care about spec,a nexus device is fast for many others things that i don't write,already sad,and also if tegra3 it's becoming an "old" chipset compared to new out this days,it performs very well with an optimized OS.wait for the 32gb version and never ever think only about cpu\gpu specs :good:
sert00 said:
i doubt 4470 it's faster than tegra3 (all 3 variant)..it's basically a 4460 with a bit more clock freq.,same 45nm tecnology and with a faster gpu (with dedicated 2d hw chipset).they claim it's up to 2 times more faster than sgx540.if it's true,i think that tegra3 is better (not for the quad).Anyway i have to agree with all the things sad in previous posts.OP don't care about spec,a nexus device is fast for many others things that i don't write,already sad,and also if tegra3 it's becoming an "old" chipset compared to new out this days,it performs very well with an optimized OS.wait for the 32gb version and never ever think only about cpu\gpu specs :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A full fat OMAP 4470 is faster than the Tegra 3. I read a review of the Archos 101 XS which runs an OMAP 4470 @ 1.5 GHz (GPU 384 MHz)
In the ultra demanding GL Benchmark 2.5 - Egypt HD (Offscreen 1080p)
Nexus 7 = 8.9 FPS
Archos = 11 FPS
Transformer Infinity = 11 FPS
There is scope for the 4470 to run at 1.8 GHz, but that is probably only for larger devices like Windows RT tablet, Amazon apparently have clocked it at 1.5 GHz. Overall in a tough benchmark the N7 is slower, however the Transformer Infinity is the same speed, which is basically as fast as an easily overclocked Nexus. As the OMAP is a dual-core, in theory a game developed specially for our Nexus (Tegra Zone?) could be faster or more feature packed in terms of physics etc, if it use all 4 cores.
Turbotab said:
A full fat OMAP 4470 is faster than the Tegra 3. I read a review of the Archos 101 XS which runs an OMAP 4470 @ 1.5 GHz (GPU 384 MHz)
In the ultra demanding GL Benchmark 2.5 - Egypt HD (Offscreen 1080p)
Nexus 7 = 8.9 FPS
Archos = 11 FPS
Transformer Infinity = 11 FPS
There is scope for the 4470 to run at 1.8 GHz, but that is probably only for larger devices like Windows RT tablet, Amazon apparently have clocked it at 1.5 GHz. Overall in a tough benchmark the N7 is slower, however the Transformer Infinity is the same speed, which is basically as fast as an easily overclocked Nexus. As the OMAP is a dual-core, in theory a game developed specially for our Nexus (Tegra Zone?) could be faster or more feature packed in terms of physics etc, if it use all 4 cores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
months ago the 4470 was supposed to run at 1.7 ghz.i remember when i bought the gnex in november 2011 that 4430 is at 1.2\4460 at 1.5\4470 at 1.7.theese number was in the official omap site and guide line referments.only after being out the fact of the 4460 bug (major part of them,wasn't capable of 1.5 ghz,and this Soc it isn't a downclocked one,from 1.5 to 1.2 by google.it's a 1.2 cpu.)they change also in the site some numbers.now the 4460 is at 1.2 and the 4470 there's write 1.3+,in this case of the archos 1.5.what a strange thing from omap!i saw same anandtech reviwe like you sad times ago,but honestly i think that in the total of bench that regularly they do,there are some in favor of 4470,and some in favor of tegra3,at least depending also if referred to cpu or gpu.with 4460 they did a good job,i really like it,but after have a look at 4460\70 documentation,seems that in term of cpu,there aren't so much differences.if i clock my 4460 at 1.5\16,do a bench and compare with a same bench do with a 4470,i think that the most differences are gpu related..and when i compare my bench with n7 and gnex,in term of cpu and both ultra-tweaked i see a big gap in scores...it's for that i continue to think in the total user exp and bench scores as well tegra3 remain more powerfull.but certainly the differences aren't visible by end user..but with bench at least and in th end what really count it's how's the user experience,not bench
sert00 said:
months ago the 4470 was supposed to run at 1.7 ghz.i remember when i bought the gnex in november 2011 that 4430 is at 1.2\4460 at 1.5\4470 at 1.7.theese number was in the official omap site and guide line referments.only after being out the fact of the 4460 bug (major part of them,wasn't capable of 1.5 ghz,and this Soc it isn't a downclocked one,from 1.5 to 1.2 by google.it's a 1.2 cpu.)they change also in the site some numbers.now the 4460 is at 1.2 and the 4470 there's write 1.3+,in this case of the archos 1.5.what a strange thing from omap!i saw same anandtech reviwe like you sad times ago,but honestly i think that in the total of bench that regularly they do,there are some in favor of 4470,and some in favor of tegra3,at least depending also if referred to cpu or gpu.with 4460 they did a good job,i really like it,but after have a look at 4460\70 documentation,seems that in term of cpu,there aren't so much differences.if i clock my 4460 at 1.5\16,do a bench and compare with a same bench do with a 4470,i think that the most differences are gpu related..and when i compare my bench with n7 and gnex,in term of cpu and both ultra-tweaked i see a big gap in scores...it's for that i continue to think in the total user exp and bench scores as well tegra3 remain more powerfull.but certainly the differences aren't visible by end user..but with bench at least and in th end what really count it's how's the user experience,not bench
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An area the 4470 does hold a significant advantage over Tegra 3 is memory bandwidth, as it utilises dual-channel memory, hopefully Tegra 4 will sort out that deficiency. Ultimately the OMAP's GPU is not powerful enough to be bandwidth limited anyway, overall I like the Tegra 3 from a UX perspective, looking forward to a Tegra 4 in the next Nexus 7 v2:good:
Using a nexus 7 now. Very happy with the money I paid for it. In terms of spec? This beast will last you for awhile. Even if they are pushing specs already to the next level, it'll be a long time until a quad core 1 gb ram machine will be considered slow.
Simply put, at this price and quality, anyone can buy it and everyone should.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Turbotab said:
Finally, The Nexus 7 is fully unlockable, so it has great developer support on XDA and other forums, which is 50% of the device's appeal in my eyes. If you can wait a few weeks, the rumour is a 32 GB model will replace the current 16 GB version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 32 gig will be replacing the 8 gig model. Two versions will be available by Christmas: a 16 gig model and a 32 gig model. The 16 will be priced at (or below) $200.00. The 32 will be at (or below) $250.00.
Posted via my Amiga 3000, EVO 3D , or Nexus 7
phillip1953 said:
The 32 gig will be replacing the 8 gig model. Two versions will be available by Christmas: a 16 gig model and a 32 gig model. The 16 will be priced at (or below) $200.00. The 32 will be at (or below) $250.00.
Posted via my Amiga 3000, EVO 3D , or Nexus 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have a link confirming that, or is that inside knowledge
It's the logic step for Google. The 32 gig is already being sold and nobody really wants the 8 gig model. To compete with the "other" tablets and to make up for the lack of an SD card slot, it only makes sense.
IOW.....my speculation from 40 years of computer use....starting with the Heathkit H8.
Posted via my Amiga 3000, EVO 3D , or Nexus 7
Quite a simple question really, which was already mentioned in the title of the thread. What do you believe to be the best tablet? A 16 GB Nexus 7 WiFi model or a 16 GB Nexus 10 WiFi model?
Hmm...
Brad387 said:
Quite a simple question really, which was already mentioned in the title of the thread. What do you believe to be the best tablet? A 16 GB Nexus 7 WiFi model or a 16 GB Nexus 10 WiFi model?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kind of an odd question really. Clearly the 10 has better specs, including screen.
But I'm pretty sure many of us bought a Nexus 7 because it was 7 inches portable. So, I'm pretty confident saying that the Nexus 7 is a better 7 inch tab than the 10 is.
PMOttawa said:
Kind of an odd question really. Clearly the 10 has better specs, including screen.
But I'm pretty sure many of us bought a Nexus 7 because it was 7 inches portable. So, I'm pretty confident saying that the Nexus 7 is a better 7 inch tab than the 10 is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it is obvious that the Nexus 7 (which is a 7" tab) is better at being a 7" tablet than a Nexus 10 (which isn't a 7" tab, but a 10" one). However, isn't the Nexus 10 only a dual-core processor? I know the screen resolution is quite amazing, but besides that isn't it actually worse?
CPU: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a15.php
GPU: http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-t604.php
CPU core count isn't all that matters. I don't have any real-world benchmarks, but I'm pretty sure that CPU alone can execute tasks faster and better than the Tegra 3. And since the GPU and CPU aren't on the same chip (that I know of), that also comes with it's share of better performance.
espionage724 said:
CPU: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a15.php
GPU: http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-t604.php
CPU core count isn't all that matters. I don't have any real-world benchmarks, but I'm pretty sure that CPU alone can execute tasks faster and better than the Tegra 3. And since the GPU and CPU aren't on the same chip (that I know of), that also comes with it's share of better performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This ^.
You cant really justify which is better becuase the size difference. Like the first poster said we all bought this for the form factor. So to us the N7 is better regardless of the specs. However spec wise... i would go with the N10.
Two completely different forms factors and uses. They are both great devices.
CPU in the N10 is about twice as fast as the best A9 (S4 Pro) out now. It is more than likely about 3-4 times faster than the T3.
Two different devices for different purposes, its like comparing a motor bike to a car
Brad387 said:
Quite a simple question really, which was already mentioned in the title of the thread. What do you believe to be the best tablet? A 16 GB Nexus 7 WiFi model or a 16 GB Nexus 10 WiFi model?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is like asking: 'What is the best: a semi or a van?'
Those 2 tablets are just in a different market, ergo not comparable.
If you don't take the size in the comparison, the Nexus 10 would win: more efficient/faster processor, way better grafics, almost quadripple resolution, ..etc.
By specs, N10 destroys the N7.
In terms of pure performance, which one is better?
The Nexus 10 is a dual core vs Tegra 3 Quad core.
2gb ram vs 1gb ram.
Also take in consideration Tegra Zone support, although not really related to performance. The Tegra 3 gets larger list of premium games.
killer8297 said:
In terms of pure performance, which one is better?
The Nexus 10 is a dual core vs Tegra 3 Quad core.
2gb ram vs 1gb ram.
Also take in consideration Tegra Zone support, although not really related to performance. The Tegra 3 gets larger list of premium games.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't even a comparison. The N10 slaughters the N7. Pros vs joes if you will.
I'd still keep my 7". It performs just fine for what I need it for. 10" is too big. I'm more comfortable with my laptop at that point.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app
Tegra has CPUs and GPU on a single chip, and other details
espionage724 said:
CPU core count isn't all that matters. I don't have any real-world benchmarks, but I'm pretty sure that CPU alone can execute tasks faster and better than the Tegra 3. And since the GPU and CPU aren't on the same chip (that I know of), that also comes with it's share of better performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are confused.
The Tegra is a System-on-Chip ("SoC") that has both CPU and GPU cores on the same die. The CPU complex has four A9 ARM cores, plus a fifth "ninja" A7 core. The GPU has 12 cores, plus a number of special functional units. All cores access the shared RAM through a single memory controller.
The CPU complex spends most of its time running only the power-optimized "ninja" core, with the other cores powered off. The ninja CPU has a simpler A7 core and is implemented with power-optimized low-leakage transistors. (The A7 core does less speculative work, and thus is more power efficient than the A9 cores even taking into account the extra clock cycles needed.) If the workload increases, the main cores are powered up and execution is switched over, with the ninja core left idle in a low power mode.
The GPU complex has 12 general execution units, but these aren't directly comparable to CPU cores. You can't even compare them to the "cores" in other types of GPUs. In addition, there are other special units such as video and audio decoders in the GPU complex. These operations could be done on the main CPU or, sometimes, the GPU. But they are common and power-hungry enough to get hard-wired logic.
All of this complexity makes it really difficult to benchmark and compare. Or really easy, if your goal is to make one product look faster than another.
The Tegra is carefully tuned to do HD video decode with only the ninja core and GPU turned on, thus consuming little power. There is just enough CPU time left over to supervise the cellular modem for housekeeping operations, or do other trivial tasks. But if you add in just a little application work, the main four cores are activated and power usage goes way up.
Another way to skew the test result is to pick specific micro benchmarks. The Apple A5 (which is unrelated to the ARM numbers e.g. A7 and A9) was designed for a high resolution screen, and knowing that many early apps would be iPhone apps with pixel doubling. They put extra gates to increase the pixel fill rate and smoothing performance. This resulted in a bigger chip, but better performance with modest power use for these functions.
My estimation: The Nexus 7 with Tegra 3 is faster, has the potential to be more power efficient, and will have better long-term support and improvements. The N10 has the big advantage of 2GB of memory, which may become important with future versions of Android.
becker. said:
You are confused.
The Tegra is a System-on-Chip ("SoC") that has both CPU and GPU cores on the same die. The CPU complex has four A9 ARM cores, plus a fifth "ninja" A7 core. The GPU has 12 cores, plus a number of special functional units. All cores access the shared RAM through a single memory controller.
The CPU complex spends most of its time running only the power-optimized "ninja" core, with the other cores powered off. The ninja CPU has a simpler A7 core and is implemented with power-optimized low-leakage transistors. (The A7 core does less speculative work, and thus is more power efficient than the A9 cores even taking into account the extra clock cycles needed.) If the workload increases, the main cores are powered up and execution is switched over, with the ninja core left idle in a low power mode.
The GPU complex has 12 general execution units, but these aren't directly comparable to CPU cores. You can't even compare them to the "cores" in other types of GPUs. In addition, there are other special units such as video and audio decoders in the GPU complex. These operations could be done on the main CPU or, sometimes, the GPU. But they are common and power-hungry enough to get hard-wired logic.
All of this complexity makes it really difficult to benchmark and compare. Or really easy, if your goal is to make one product look faster than another.
The Tegra is carefully tuned to do HD video decode with only the ninja core and GPU turned on, thus consuming little power. There is just enough CPU time left over to supervise the cellular modem for housekeeping operations, or do other trivial tasks. But if you add in just a little application work, the main four cores are activated and power usage goes way up.
Another way to skew the test result is to pick specific micro benchmarks. The Apple A5 (which is unrelated to the ARM numbers e.g. A7 and A9) was designed for a high resolution screen, and knowing that many early apps would be iPhone apps with pixel doubling. They put extra gates to increase the pixel fill rate and smoothing performance. This resulted in a bigger chip, but better performance with modest power use for these functions.
My estimation: The Nexus 7 with Tegra 3 is faster, has the potential to be more power efficient, and will have better long-term support and improvements. The N10 has the big advantage of 2GB of memory, which may become important with future versions of Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best answer I've seen.
And has been said before, surely, in the end it comes down to what do you want to do with it. I prefer my n7 because 10" tablets are simply too big and uncomfortable
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Real world experience will require the device in hand. The resolution being pushed will need a lot more backbone to provide the same smooth experience as the lower resolution device. Just look at the iPad 2 vs 3. The iPad 2 felt like a better experience because of the lower resolution. Most people couldn't even tell the two apart or correctly identify which was one or the other.
Resolution that high is retarded on a 10" screen. Waste of battery and resources.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA Premium HD app
I say wait another 3 months before committed to buying 10 inch. Google might upgrade its 10 inch with 3G, who knows, having experiencing what they did with 7 inch.
player911 said:
Real world experience will require the device in hand. The resolution being pushed will need a lot more backbone to provide the same smooth experience as the lower resolution device. Just look at the iPad 2 vs 3. The iPad 2 felt like a better experience because of the lower resolution. Most people couldn't even tell the two apart or correctly identify which was one or the other.
Resolution that high is retarded on a 10" screen. Waste of battery and resources.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree.A super display is great if everything is built to look good on it but not if it comes at too big of cost in performance.That is what happened to the ipad 3.They made a good device pretty, but slow.On a small screen most can't tell the difference in dvd quality and full hd.Both would look good but one would smoke the other with the same hardware doing other things. jmo
player911 said:
The iPad 2 felt like a better experience because of the lower resolution. Most people couldn't even tell the two apart or correctly identify which was one or the other.
Resolution that high is retarded on a 10" screen. Waste of battery and resources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Keep in mind why the iPad has pointlessly high resolution. It wasn't that Apple wanted to provide an exceptional experience. It was that the underlying software wasn't designed for different screen sizes and proportions. They had a choice between redesigning the API combined with converting apps, or making the screen exactly double the number of pixels in each direction. Apple's big market advantage was the higher app count, and many apps wouldn't be converted to a new interface ("walking dead" / will never be updated). So they went with a hardware solution, and marketed the "retina display" as a plus rather than a work-around for a primitive API. (A replay of the Mac ROM holding back OS improvements.)
Ofcourse specs wise N10 wins..But N10 lacks some features like its only WIFI no 3G/2G !!! it will be tough for my country .
Hi Guys,
I am having problem deciding which tablet to buy. Surface Pro is a joke with battery life/weight/performance. You might have i5 cpu but Intel hd4000 is a joke. So you get bad battery life and no gaming performance (online games). Better bet would be Acer w700 lasts much longer on battery, is cheaper but is to big and hate the stand arrangement. Not to mention again Intel hd4000.
Currently I have old Acer W500 and am happy with general performance on my daily tasks including battery life. Have a small gripe with pure cpu performance on it. Win8 makes up a bit using ati integrated gpu chip but as soon as there is 50% or more usage on hdd or sd card or so entire unit gets bugged down. Biggest problem miserable screen resolution.
I know atom in w510 is much, much faster cpu in comparison to amd c-50. However graphics integration in c-50 means that full hd playback uses virtually 0 cpu resources as entire job is done by gpu, same using IE, metro and so.
I use the tablet mainly as internet device, Skype, hd video player, I use office a lot and listen to music lots while doing that.
Which would be better to stick with current W500 that now has about 4.5h battery life (barely enough) or move to W510?
Having some trouble understanding your gripe with HD4000 GPU, given that it is low power and for what you need it for, you don't need anything more?
Screen resolution on W500 vs W510 isn't that much different with the Atom processor model. It's 1280x800 vs 1366x768.
Biggest difference for you would be the battery life. W510 should give you at least 2.5hrs more than what you are getting now.
However, the W500 has a faster storage system than the W510, which uses eMMC flash as storage.
Screen resolution is not that much different but tell it to MS who disabled snap that worked perfectly in beta's.
Regarding graphics on W500 I can play eve online and medium details (high if not in huge space battle), can play bsgo on high.
Tried mates i5 laptop with HD4000 and eve is in essence on low (all special hardware accelerated effects are off) and it was still doing only 30fps.
I'm happy with my W500 in everyway except not able to snap apps... :/ battery is okay, graphics is good and over all performance is great for a tablet.
That is my thinking. If resolution of the screen was like in W510 I would not think about upgrading for another year or longer.
Hm wonder if we could purchase a higher resolution LCD?
Does anyone know if digitizer on W500 is glued to screen like in phones? At the end as it is normal PC digitizer is nothing more then another USB device and it actually shows as HID enabled mouse.
Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600KThe latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900KAs mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.
kunalneo said:
Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600KThe latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900KAs mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think for the money the i9 10850k is a better option than the 10900 as long as you're not concerned about pci gen 4
I am looking for user of a Core-i7 990x 5-6Ghz 24GB fastest RAM.
GTX470+GTX980ACX2.0 Overcloked
OCZ 240GByte PCI 3.0 SSD 2000MByte/s
Check AMD for my 2 other servers JimDijkstra86NL aKa Jimmy ;-D
I know shes old but she was gold I7-2600k. Still using mine OC'd from day1 with a H70. daily 4.5Ghz 24/7 bought right after Ivy Bridge release for price reasons. Updated my graphic to 1060 6g and running it in only 2 lanes with Sandy and have yet to have issues in games. Well depending on what i set Horizon 5 to it will be crushed. H5 is very demanding GPU wise.
The best menu for CPU means fastest chip, which speed up your device. Now a days there are many best intel processors for gaming.
For intel series I would recommend 12th Gen 12400 for gaming under Budget
Really would like to have 1 that OC'd like Sandy u didn't hardly need to do much of anything to hit 4.5,4.6. Slap good ram in and a good water cooler and rock and roll time
Why are there no i7s on this list? A xx700 has plenty of power. I would argue an i9 is way overkill for most gamers.
"Best" is also a subjective term. Ideally, you want a combination of CPU, motherboard, RAM, and GPU where each compliments the other. If you're running a 3080 Ti on an i5, you're probably not going to get the maximum performance out of the GPU. This is called "bottlenecking".
ALL Intel CPUs were very good performers once starting with the first i5/i7. I still see people pushing hex-core Westmere-EP Xeons like X5672 to 4 GHz with surprising results for an 11-year-old CPU!
The best processor for gaming would be Intel Core i5 12600K.
The Core i5 12600K is the standout processor for gamers because it not only offers great gaming performance across the board, but it does so at a price point that isn't going to reduce you to tears. It not only beats the similarly priced 5600X in pretty much every game, but it outperforms the $750 Ryzen 9 5950X in plenty of tests too. That it soundly beats the Core i9 11900K is just the icing on the cake. Not bad for a $320 mid-range chip.