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 own this 2 beast and I also quit confusing to compare this smartphone which is the best one. I like the speed of O2X, but dislike it ui or interface if compare to DHD htc sense. I also like DHD aluminum body more than O2X plastic. So, what do you think guys? which one is better?
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
Any one? just to know your opinion.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
is there a massive speed difference?
Well the biggest difference is probably that Dual Core processor of the O2X (2 x 1GHz) while the DHD only has a single core (also 1GHz).
The main camera is similar, but the O2X is capable of 1080p video recording AND additionally has a front faced camera for video calls.
It has also got more internal storage (8GB) and a slightly better battery (1500 mAH)
So yeah, I would say that the O2X is better than the DHD.
frosty_ice said:
Well the biggest difference is probably that Dual Core processor of the O2X (2 x 1GHz) while the DHD only has a single core (also 1GHz).
The main camera is similar, but the O2X is capable of 1080p video recording AND additionally has a front faced camera for video calls.
It has also got more internal storage (8GB) and a slightly better battery (1500 mAH)
So yeah, I would say that the O2X is better than the DHD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeh but it has an extremely buggy ui. the speed test show it beats the dhd in web browsing by 1-2 seconds. also some benchmark test show the dhd scoring higher.
also the dualcore phones dont have 2x 1GHz cpu... the total speed is 1ghz
so its (2x 500mhz) this is more efficient than single core.
olyloh6696 said:
also the dualcore phones dont have 2x 1GHz cpu... the total speed is 1ghz
so its (2x 500mhz) this is more efficient than single core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Say what?!
A 1ghz dual core processor is not 2 processors running at 500mhz!!! It is a single CPU with 2 cores capable of processing separate threads. It runs at 1ghz and technically it is like 2 1ghz processors operating in tandem.
Shoot whoever is spreading the above misinformation lol.
Regards.
lynxboy said:
Say what?!
A 1ghz dual core processor is not 2 processors running at 500mhz!!! It is a single CPU with 2 cores capable of processing separate threads. It runs at 1ghz and technically it is like 2 1ghz processors operating in tandem.
Shoot whoever is spreading the above misinformation lol.
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure?? I have read everywhere it is 500mhz!! Othwise why do manufactureas say it is a 1.2ghz dualcore phone?! Why dont they say it is a 2.4ghz phone? I think you may be wrong
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
olyloh6696 said:
Are you sure?? I have read everywhere it is 500mhz!! Othwise why do manufactureas say it is a 1.2ghz dualcore phone?! Why dont they say it is a 2.4ghz phone? I think you may be wrong
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He is definitely right.
You can't just add the speeds of two seperate cores up. The dual core runs at 2 @ 1Ghz. That's like two seperate CPUs, each with a clock speed of 1Ghz. So it is NOT 2 Ghz CPU but rather 2 processors @ 1Ghz. It may sound similar, but it makes a huge difference (for further detail you should look into how a processor works and what threads are).
frosty_ice said:
He is definitely right.
You can't just add the speeds of two seperate cores up. The dual core runs at 2 @ 1Ghz. That's like two seperate CPUs, each with a clock speed of 1Ghz. So it is NOT 2 Ghz CPU but rather 2 processors @ 1Ghz. It may sound similar, but it makes a huge difference (for further detail you should look into how a processor works and what threads are).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats explain alot why bench mark for stock rom O2X is 2689 and DHD only around 1545.
thanks guys for your info, keep it coming.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
frosty_ice said:
He is definitely right.
You can't just add the speeds of two seperate cores up. The dual core runs at 2 @ 1Ghz. That's like two seperate CPUs, each with a clock speed of 1Ghz. So it is NOT 2 Ghz CPU but rather 2 processors @ 1Ghz. It may sound similar, but it makes a huge difference (for further detail you should look into how a processor works and what threads are).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so i'm right?
olyloh6696 said:
so i'm right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, lynx is The O2X CPU runs at 1Ghz per core.
olyloh6696 said:
so i'm right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just google about dual core vs single core.
You will find info where dual core freq is same as single core. The only different is that dual core is way better when doing multitasking (avoid hang or jitter) and not to say double speed but can say nearly double speed.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
frosty_ice said:
No, lynx is The O2X CPU runs at 1Ghz per core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks, but why does it say for ecample that the htc sensation runs at 1.2 ghz? If they want to be more impressive, why dont they just say its running at 2.4 ghz?
Ok guys, it is clearly in term of hardware O2X is the winner. But how about its ui? software? And its unibody design? any opinion i do appreciate.
Thanks.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
Im not an expert but correct me if im wrong.
1 CPU with 2 core. Each core have 1 ghz freq. 1 core to do 1 task, another core to do another task. Meaning freq each core still 1 ghz but since its have dual core it can do both task at the same time. More quick than a single core. If we compare to single core with 2 ghz, it can only do task 1 at a time. In term of speed i think dual core 1 ghz should be nearly the same as 1 core 2 ghz. I also read some where saying single core 2 ghz consume more power than dual core 1 ghz.
Just my 2 cent.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
Dual Core Processors
olyloh6696 said:
Are you sure?? I have read everywhere it is 500mhz!! Othwise why do manufactureas say it is a 1.2ghz dualcore phone?! Why dont they say it is a 2.4ghz phone? I think you may be wrong
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
olyloh6696 said:
thanks, but why does it say for ecample that the htc sensation runs at 1.2 ghz? If they want to be more impressive, why dont they just say its running at 2.4 ghz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm 100% sure. Here's a brief history of multi core processors for those who are interested.
In the late 90's and early 000's, processor speed was constantly on the rise. Manufacturers were trying to out-do each other in regards to who had the fastest clock speed.
The way clock speed increases is by actually shrinking the microarchitecture (Semi-Conductors) of the processor, which leads to faster data transfer/processing rates. There was a pattern involved where each new generation of chip architecture yielded almost twice the clock speed of the past generation. However, as processor architecture grew smaller and smaller, eventually we approached a stage where physically, using current materials and manufacturing processes, a limit had been reached. It wasn't possible to continue shrinking the size of the processor, so logically, the next step was to integrate multiple cores on a single chip. This was the birth of the multicore processor.
The way a multicore processor works is by utilising multiple processor cores on a single chip. This way, instead of a higher clock speed, you have multiple cores running at the same speed, 'sharing' the workload. So, a 1ghz Dual Core Processor is a single chip, with 2 cores both clocked at 1ghz. A 3ghz Quad Core Processor is a single chip, with 4 cores all clocked at 3ghz.
This all sounds wonderful, but for a multicore processor to be used efficiently, it requires software to be multithreaded. This is where you have to question the use of dual core processors in smartphones, as none of the applications or the OS utilise multiple threads! So really, as it stands, you'll struggle to see truly improved performance from dual core handsets.
This will all change in the future. Android 2.4 will support dual cores by default and I'm guessing most software will start to aswell.
Anway, hope this was interesting for those wondering how dual core processors work and about clock speed etc.
Regards.
Well i have both phones now... i missed the sence weather and clock from DHD but fancy widget fixed that. O2x still has a few bugs ie black screen and auto reboots but i only had 1 bs a 2 reboots in 2 weeks now . games work better on o2x also with normal lock screen o2x is snapper all over at stock than a oc to 1.2 ghz DHD but the best part is the real HDMI out (no need for a ps3) but i will keep both phones
olyloh6696 said:
thanks, but why does it say for ecample that the htc sensation runs at 1.2 ghz? If they want to be more impressive, why dont they just say its running at 2.4 ghz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because they would be lying. If I have two towers each being 50m tall I can't advertise that I'm selling a 100m tower because I'm not.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA App
lynxboy said:
I'm 100% sure. Here's a brief history of multi core processors for those who are interested.
In the late 90's and early 000's, processor speed was constantly on the rise. Manufacturers were trying to out-do each other in regards to who had the fastest clock speed.
The way clock speed increases is by actually shrinking the microarchitecture (Semi-Conductors) of the processor, which leads to faster data transfer/processing rates. There was a pattern involved where each new generation of chip architecture yielded almost twice the clock speed of the past generation. However, as processor architecture grew smaller and smaller, eventually we approached a stage where physically, using current materials and manufacturing processes, a limit had been reached. It wasn't possible to continue shrinking the size of the processor, so logically, the next step was to integrate multiple cores on a single chip. This was the birth of the multicore processor.
The way a multicore processor works is by utilising multiple processor cores on a single chip. This way, instead of a higher clock speed, you have multiple cores running at the same speed, 'sharing' the workload. So, a 1ghz Dual Core Processor is a single chip, with 2 cores both clocked at 1ghz. A 3ghz Quad Core Processor is a single chip, with 4 cores all clocked at 3ghz.
This all sounds wonderful, but for a multicore processor to be used efficiently, it requires software to be multithreaded. This is where you have to question the use of dual core processors in smartphones, as none of the applications or the OS utilise multiple threads! So really, as it stands, you'll struggle to see truly improved performance from dual core handsets.
This will all change in the future. Android 2.4 will support dual cores by default and I'm guessing most software will start to aswell.
Anway, hope this was interesting for those wondering how dual core processors work and about clock speed etc.
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for that! it helped me understand it abit more, cheers
but isnt the nexus s the developers phone? so android 2.4 must not just require dual core as the nexus s will be getting the 2.4 update?
letom said:
Because they would be lying. If I have two towers each being 50m tall I can't advertise that I'm selling a 100m tower because I'm not.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i see you logic now
but you could say in total you have 100m tower? so could you say i have a 2.4 ghz clocked phone?
Hi all.
I was questioning myself if the motorola xoom has two cores of 1ghz each one, Or both together have 1Ghz...?
Can Someone answer this?
p.d. Sorry 4 my bad english.
Both cores will be 1 GHZ.
solarnz said:
Both cores will be 1 GHZ.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, it has 2 cores of 500mhz each one?
Ifiuse said:
So, it has 2 cores of 500mhz each one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 core / 1ghz.
1 CPU...two cores...1ghz per core...1ghz total
Sent from my Xoom
Thanks u. Regards.
Im an Electronic Engineer so forgive my not understanding peoples confusion with the ghz thing but ...
Frequency is a rate, its speed, this is not a volume or value, were aren't saying they have 2MB of memory, is it 2 each or 1, 1.
Time runs at 1hz for me, as it does for everyone else in the world, do we share the 1hz or is it equal?
The hardware design determines the clock frequency of a cpu core, it doesn't, matter if you have a single for 1ghz, 2 core 1ghz or 20480 core 1ghz,
As long as those cores are they same, they run on the same clock.
To ask if they share the clock time would be like saying I have a guy that can do 2 sums every time the sun rises, now I have 2 guys that can do two sums every time the sun rises, do they do ne each? No, sun rises once a day and each of them does two sums, so you get twice as much work out of them in the same amount of time.
That might raise the question, well, while dont we just have 50 cores?
Well, its expensive to manufacture, its subject to low yield, it expensive and power consuming, also software has to be written to take advantage of all the cores (if you don't have enough sums to give your two guys, they can't give you results, right?)
Anyway, point is, the frequency is a rate, and don't for a moment assume that higher frequency automatically means more powerful processing. (Its true to an extent, but only within the same architecture.)
Macbots drool as I XOOM through the Galaxy to my hearts Desire.
good analogy, I use the car & highway one... 2 cars 1 lane for single core or 2 lanes and 1 car on each lane for dual core..
so? total=1ghz for all or total=2(1ghz) im slow
lchingonl said:
so? total=1ghz for all or total=2(1ghz) im slow
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, there is no _total_!
1GHz is the frequency that the CPU core clock runs at, they all run the same, on the same clock, 1 core, 2 cores, ten cores.
You need to understand this concept that "total" doesn't apply here.
This is not "1GHz per core", the core clock frequency is 1GHz, and there are two cores, they BOTH run at 1GHz.
This is the first dual core I've had, and I don't know much about the technology.
What's the difference between a dual core cpu running @ 1GHz and a single core running @ 2 GHz?
Psychokitty said:
This is the first dual core I've had, and I don't know much about the technology.
What's the difference between a dual core cpu running @ 1GHz and a single core running @ 2 GHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2 cores both running at 1ghz still equals 1ghz...1 core running at 2ghz equals 2ghz.
Lets try this:
If two cars are both going down the road at 60mph, how long does it take them to go 60 miles? Even though there is 2 of them, both running the same speed, it still takes 1 hour. Hope this helps you understand.
Am I right in believing that with two 1ghz cores, there would be no benefit in speed unless the app or OS were specifically designed to utilize both cores? My understanding was that if you had two 1ghz cores, and the app was programmed to utilize both cores, each core would handle it's own load. Is this wrong?
Does two 1ghz cores truly equal 2x the speed if the app is programmed to use both?
deepducky said:
Am I right in believing that with two 1ghz cores, there would be no benefit in speed unless the app or OS were specifically designed to utilize both cores? My understanding was that if you had two 1ghz cores, and the app was programmed to utilize both cores, each core would handle it's own load. Is this wrong?
Does two 1ghz cores truly equal 2x the speed if the app is programmed to use both?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it depends on the application's workload more rather than the programming. If the application can split its workload into parts that can be done in parallel, you get a speed increase. However, if the application relies completely on having to have one part that cannot be broken up into parallel-running parts, then you will get absolutely no benefit from a multiple-core processor.
Mostly, dual-core processors are about *efficiency* rather than *speed*. Here's a good analogy. It's about being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, rather than having to walk a bit, stop, chew gum for a bit, stop, walk a bit more, stop, etc.
ydaraishy said:
No, it depends on the application's workload more rather than the programming. If the application can split its workload into parts that can be done in parallel, you get a speed increase. However, if the application relies completely on having to have one part that cannot be broken up into parallel-running parts, then you will get absolutely no benefit from a multiple-core processor.
Mostly, dual-core processors are about *efficiency* rather than *speed*. Here's a good analogy. It's about being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, rather than having to walk a bit, stop, chew gum for a bit, stop, walk a bit more, stop, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In addition, to that analogy, consider the saying "two headsbare better than one." When you have two devs working together, they can get through their to-do list quicker and more efficiently than one dev doing everything alone.
so now that the latest beta of siyah kernel supports enabling/disabling of the 2nd core, and tegrak already released an app for it, i just want to know the possible effects in performance/battery if you use the different options of the 2nd core app.. especially when we use the single core option.. so what will happen to our phone when we run HD games, and im sure that it will extend the battery life, just not sure how the phone will behave with only 1 core running.. and will it be bad for our phone to only run at a single core..
and also, am i right to assume that our phone has the option "dynamic hotplug" by default?
Shouldn't see much of a decrease in the performance. The sgs has a single core yet the cpu can still handle anything thrown against it. Point being there is nothing out that demands dual core performance. On another note note, hd games are not actually gd. It is just advertising point for game developers.
$1 gets you a reply
Using one core instead won't break your cpu. It gonna make your phone cooler ( ! core is running producing less heat and the heat dissipator is made for the dual core ) and have a better battery life obviously. It will, obviously too, slow down your phone, but the speed lost is to be determined. You might want to test it out to see if it's getting laggy or simply suck. As already said, the SGS I has a 1Ghz proc and can handle most of the top recent content available so with a 1.2 Ghz single core, you should be able to handle everything available, specially with an optimized kernel like siyah. And you are right, the default mode is dynamic hotplug, which use both core when needed and turn the core 1 ( 2nd core ) off when not needed.
I tried playing a little with it. The overall smootness doesn't change and i get about the same fps in nenamark2. The only game i saw stuttering a little more in single mode was Shadowgun, the others are just the same. I also have the feeling that cpu noise is reduced while playing music through headsets when you run on single.
I like the idea of switching off one core. But while using only one core this leads to a higher load on that corse. This will result in higher frequencies an thus higher battery consumption?
So might using only one core even be worse for battery life?
I mean isn't that the reason why you use multiple cores? That one does not have to produce cpu with high frequencies? I think I once read that the energy a cpu uses it proportional to the frequency squared. So it is not a linear relation. That means two cores on 500 MHz are using less power than one cpu on 1000 Mhz. Can someone confirm that? So if th os is optimized for multiple cores the energy consumptions will be less.
What do you think or know about Android. Is it managing two cores intelligently an thus reducing energy consumption or are we doing better with switching off one core?
Hi,
is anybody out there who can share any experiences with this 2nd Core app?
It would be very interesting whether it really saves battery(and if yes, is it noticeably or is it a huge difference)? Are there any negative effects in speed oder stability?
Rgds
I don't particularly care about potential battery saving, but I use it to manually disable one core while playing games which have problems with SoundPool ( see http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=17623 ), such as Galcon, as this mitigates the problems.
Schindler33 said:
I like the idea of switching off one core. But while using only one core this leads to a higher load on that corse. This will result in higher frequencies an thus higher battery consumption?
So might using only one core even be worse for battery life?
I mean isn't that the reason why you use multiple cores? That one does not have to produce cpu with high frequencies? I think I once read that the energy a cpu uses it proportional to the frequency squared. So it is not a linear relation. That means two cores on 500 MHz are using less power than one cpu on 1000 Mhz. Can someone confirm that? So if th os is optimized for multiple cores the energy consumptions will be less.
What do you think or know about Android. Is it managing two cores intelligently an thus reducing energy consumption or are we doing better with switching off one core?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totlly agree
Which processow will be better, Exynos 5 Octa or A simple Snapdragon 600 quad?
In my POV, Octa will be useless since it will be a battery hog and no apps really use that much cores and power. The S600 will be more efficient for day-to-day use since it consumes less power and will actually be used.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Sent from a dark and unknown place
Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 P3100
I thought the s4 had the same processor as the One, but it was clocked to 1.9? I could be wrong. I wasn't really paying attention.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
I'd imagine this thread will get closed.
In the meantime, read this thread and then make a judgement because the "it uses more power so it sucks" mentality is just simply incorrect.
[Info] Exynos Octa and why you need to stop the drama about the 8 cores
AndreiLux said:
Misconception #1: Samsung didn't design this, ARM did. This is not some stupid marketing gimmick.
Misconception #2: You DON'T need to have all 8 cores online, actually, only maximum 4 cores will ever be online at the same time.
Misconception #3: If the workload is thread-light, just as we did hot-plugging on previous CPUs, big.LITTLE pairs will simply remain offline under such light loads. There is no wasted power with power-gating.
Misconception #4: As mentioned, each pair can switch independently of other pairs. It's not he whole cluster who switches between A15 and A7 cores. You can have only a single A15 online, together with two A7's, while the fourth pair is completely offline.
Misconception #5: The two clusters have their own frequency planes. This means A15 cores all run on one frequency while the A7 cores can be running on another. However, inside of the frequency planes, all cores run at the same frequency, meaning there is only one frequency for all cores of a type at a time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Addition: I am not a Samsung fanboy by any means, however, the amount of incorrect information floating around about both of these flagships is starting to get annoying.
2nd addition: Read this as well, the big.LITTLE technology being used in the Octa is pretty amazing: big.LITTLE Processing
I hope that the overclocking or higher clock rate doesn't produce Moment-esque results.
Alsybub said:
I thought the s4 had the same processor as the One, but it was clocked to 1.9? I could be wrong. I wasn't really paying attention.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the US that is true, they are both S600's, with the S4 having a .2ghz higher clockspeed. Many of the other S4's will have the Octa Exynos chip.
crawlgsx said:
In the US that is true, they are both S600's, with the S4 having a .2ghz higher clockspeed. Many of the other S4's will have the Octa Exynos chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah. I see. Different hardware for different regions. Like the One X.
Even though it's eight cores it is probably complete overkill. Yet another bigger number to put on marketing. How many apps will actually use that? How many apps use four cores at the moment?
There have been some articles about multiple cores being more for point of sale than for the end user. Even if you're signing up for a contract right now I doubt that much would be making use of it in two years time. So, the future proofing argument is moot.
It'll be interesting to see. Of course the galaxy builds of Android will use the cores. With things like the stay awake feature and pip it is useful. Outside of the OS I can't see it being necessary.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk HD
The "octa" core processor is complete bullsh*t. Imo, 2/4 cores are perfectly fine as long as they optimize it and perfect the hardware, why stack 8 cores when only 4 work at one time and no app will use all that power.
They should've focused on design to make it look less like a toy phone and use better finish, instead.
Oh the marketing..
Not HTC or whatever fanboy, just stating my opinion.
rotchcrocket04 said:
I'd imagine this thread will get closed.
In the meantime, read this thread and then make a judgement because the "it uses more power so it sucks" mentality is just simply incorrect.
[Info] Exynos Octa and why you need to stop the drama about the 8 cores
Addition: I am not a Samsung fanboy by any means, however, the amount of incorrect information floating around about both of these flagships is starting to get annoying.
2nd addition: Read this as well, the big.LITTLE technology being used in the Octa is pretty amazing: big.LITTLE Processing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very good read, thanks for taking the time to post it. Surprised no-one has mentioned that we need this in our Ones. Would certainly help with the battery.
Saying its a 8 core cpu is marketing simply put.
Like it has been said only 4 out of 8 cores will only ever be enabled at once max.
The GPU on the Octa might be better then the Adreno 320 but its have to wait for benchmarks.
Nekromantik said:
Saying its a 8 core cpu is marketing simply put.
Like it has been said only 4 out of 8 cores will only ever be enabled at once max.
The GPU on the Octa might be better then the Adreno 320 but its have to wait for benchmarks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Benchmarks show adreno320 keeps up nicely. You won't see any real world differences besides a slightly lower benchmark score
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191834
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
Squirrel1620 said:
Benchmarks show adreno320 keeps up nicely. You won't see any real world differences besides a slightly lower benchmark score
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191834
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are from the S600 version.
Higher clock speed and Android 4.2 will mean its slightly ahead.
No benchmarks from the Octa version yet.
Nekromantik said:
Those are from the S600 version.
Higher clock speed and Android 4.2 will mean its slightly ahead.
No benchmarks from the Octa version yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll just stick with the one and wait for the 4.2 update. By then we should have custom kernels to overclock ourselves
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
Here you go
Nekromantik said:
Saying its a 8 core cpu is marketing simply put.
Like it has been said only 4 out of 8 cores will only ever be enabled at once max.
The GPU on the Octa might be better then the Adreno 320 but its have to wait for benchmarks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Octa" is not gimmicky or for marketing.
Octa is the name of the SoC, and how it was named is nothing wrong
There are 3 implementations can be used, and one with maximum 8 cores running at the same time.
GS4 doesn't use that impletations, but it does not mean the SoC cannot be "Octa". You have a house with 8 rooms but you know to open or you wanna open 4 rooms only, the house is still an 8-room house.
hung2900 said:
"Octa" is not gimmicky or for marketing.
Octa is the name of the SoC, and how it was named is nothing wrong
There are 3 implementations can be used, and one with maximum 8 cores running at the same time.
GS4 doesn't use that impletations, but it does not mean the SoC cannot be "Octa". You have a house with 8 rooms but you know to open or you wanna open 4 rooms only, the house is still an 8-room house.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you know all 8 can run at the same time? Has Samsung demonstrated that already? Any links?
Also what would be the speed if all 8 are running at the same time?
Also did you see that an Intel dual core @2GHz beat the Exynos Octa in benchmarks!!! So all 8 cores running at slower speed might not be very good actually. It might even slow down things even more...
We recently demonstrated a dual core running at 3GHz at MWC in Barcelona. That chip was able to load games at crazy speeds. A game that took 15s to load on existing Exynos Quad core was loading in just 6s with our chip!
joslicx said:
We recently demonstrated a dual core running at 3GHz at MWC in Barcelona. That chip was able to load games at crazy speeds. A game that took 15s to load on existing Exynos Quad core was loading in just 6s with our chip!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
. And used 3 times the energy to do it... Was that tested at all?
backfromthestorm said:
. And used 3 times the energy to do it... Was that tested at all?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its all about bragging rights really. Same as Samsung is doing with regards to Octa.
The the chip that could run at 3GHz could also very well run at 1GHz at just 0.6V (so consuming far lesser power than anything else in the market). A dual core at 1GHz is still good enough for all mundane tasks like playing videos or internet browsing etc. So in practice it would have been a very efficient solution. It was a real innovation really. Sadly the company did not have money to pour more funds into the program and has shut it.
It was demonstrated at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona in february this year.
Anyway point is, we did not need extra set of power efficient cores like Samsung is doing. We ran the same cores that could do crazy high speeds and even crazier power efficient mode! Thats a very neat solution.
Heres a press link: http://www.itproportal.com/2013/02/25/mwc-2013-exclusive-dual-core-st-ericsson-novathor-l8580-soc-crushes-competition-benchmarks/
To quote the article:
A continuous running test monitored by an infra-red reader showed that the 3GHz prototype smartphone remained cooler as it uses less energy and in some scenarios, it could add up to five hours battery life in a normal usage scenario
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hung2900 said:
"Octa" is not gimmicky or for marketing.
Octa is the name of the SoC, and how it was named is nothing wrong
There are 3 implementations can be used, and one with maximum 8 cores running at the same time.
GS4 doesn't use that impletations, but it does not mean the SoC cannot be "Octa". You have a house with 8 rooms but you know to open or you wanna open 4 rooms only, the house is still an 8-room house.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no. At least not in my opinion. Octacore means 8 cpu cores on one cpu-chip.
I would see it like this:
You have 2 houses on your lawn which are beside each other. Every house has 4 rooms. You have to switch houses to open up the rooms. Just like the Exynos "Octa" has to, since it cannot run both CPU's at the same time.
If you are in a house with 8 rooms, you cannot simply be in all 8 rooms at once. You can connect the open doors between all the rooms, and since your in that house, you can freely walk in every room. But not with that implementation.
I wouldn't call the Exynos "Octa" an Octacore, its a dual CPU system with a 2x4 cores, with the difference that regular desktop dual CPU systems can use both CPU units at once, but not like the Exynos "Octa". Still, dual quad system comes closer than a pure octacore system.
This is kind of a hybrid. Nice technology for a mobile device, but at the same time, kind of unneeded / inefficient, compared to regular quadcore systems. Even the Tegra 3 system with 4 active cores and 1 companion core for standby tasks seems more efficient (in terms of "used space" and ressources).
Ah well let's see how the supposed and so called "octacore" will score in the future...
processor differences
okay I know both processor are snapdragon 600's but why is the galaxy S4's processor clocked at 1.9 ghz and the HTC One's processor is clocked at 1.7 ghz is it just an instance of samsung overclocking the s600 or are they different variations of the same processor, I have done some research and am able to find no clear answer to this question even on the snapdragon website????????
dawg00201 said:
okay I know both processor are snapdragon 600's but why is the galaxy S4's processor clocked at 1.9 ghz and the HTC One's processor is clocked at 1.7 ghz is it just an instance of samsung overclocking the s600 or are they different variations of the same processor, I have done some research and am able to find no clear answer to this question even on the snapdragon website????????
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They should be identical. I think its just a manufacturer choice. But it could also be associated to termals or battery.
Cause Samsung took the higher frequency chips, there is the possibility that they also get the "better" chips: Lower Voltage for the same frequency. But thats just an assumption.