Related
With all the talk of Intel breaking into the smartphone market
I ask, between AMD and Intel who would you want in your phone our tablet and why?
My answer its AMD, their apu's I find to be very impressive vs the atom or laptop core I series. Id love to have a Radeon HD 6400 series gpu to play my Android games on =)
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Amd the apu is great i hope the put it in tablets an does android support those kinds of cpu's
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Jasonhunterx said:
Amd the apu is great i hope the put it in tablets an does android support those kinds of cpu's
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its going to yes =) and unofficially does already
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Hands down amd. Basicly intel makes a hell of a cpu but graphics not so much. Amd is not to far behind intel. But imho they make the best graphic cards and have the best technology in the gpu. So if they decided to make tablet and phones cpu and gpu i think they will have be very good and being that its phone and tablet maybe some of there gpu tech can be used in the cpu since the cpu for phones and tablets work a bit different than a desktop cpu or laptop cpu for that matter. Sorry for the caps im at work i have to use caps all day
AMD is the best, all day, everyday
i'll stick with Samsung CPUs
they are the best right now in the phone market
AllGamer said:
i'll stick with Samsung CPUs
they are the best right now in the phone market
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, buy if these guys got in the game is the question =)
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
hotadef said:
Hands down amd. Basicly intel makes a hell of a cpu but graphics not so much. Amd is not to far behind intel. But imho they make the best graphic cards and have the best technology in the gpu. So if they decided to make tablet and phones cpu and gpu i think they will have be very good and being that its phone and tablet maybe some of there gpu tech can be used in the cpu since the cpu for phones and tablets work a bit different than a desktop cpu or laptop cpu for that matter. Sorry for the caps im at work i have to use caps all day
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree there, but with AMD llano and later bulldozer based APU, any processor gap between Intel and AMD will be gone. These two companies entering the mobile arena will make competition skyrocket, and that only means good things for us consumers =) they would push the drive for faster graphics and processors even quicker than it already its moving
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Nvidia. Thanks.
Lmao Nvidia sucks google made a mistake using nvidia for honeycomb exynos an omap smokes tegra
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Samsung, Nvidia, Intel, then AMD
Remember people you get what you pay for and AMD is CHEAP, and no I'm not impressed with their GPUs either
AMD is not cheap. They have graphics processors at all price points offering more bang for buck than the equivalent Nvidia offering.
Amd is cheap, well slower than intel
also keep in mind that AMD is bringing around their first major Arch revision since 2004, and also keep in mind that for a while AMD smoked intel with Athlon and Athlon XP aswell as with Athlon64, intel didnt regain lead till the core series. AMD GPU on the other hand are consistently offering more for your Dollar than NVIDIA, I have a Radeon HD4870 1gb and can still max out ALL my games short of DX11 specific features (tesselation, etc.) Intel processors since the beginning of the core series have been great, but their GPU leave alot to be desired. Until I can play Borderlands on an intel APU with a better framerate than an AMD APU I'm gonna go with AMD. If you can really name a single desktop application or game where there is a big enough difference between AMD and Intel (desktop as in common user applications) then you will get my kudos. Also your going to want to be looking into AMD and Intels new archs like bulldozer and ivy bridge. Bulldozer will be out in just over a week and we'll see what AMD has up there sleeve with their first major arch change in forever =] (and now that they will have all the instruction sets intel has also =D)
EDIT: and by difference I mean more than 10-15sec or more than 10-15FPS
I'd like to see a Cyrix chip in my next phone please...
intel.
anyone ran an ati/amd gpu on linux? yeah... as bad as or worse than samsung on driver support.
ECOTOX said:
AMD GPU on the other hand are consistently offering more for your Dollar than NVIDIA, I have a Radeon HD4870 1gb and can still max out ALL my games short of DX11 specific features (tesselation, etc.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
really? my 5770 couldn't even consistently pull 30fps in css (which is, what, 7 years old now?) on high settings. and when i added a second 5770 in crossfire and play css i'm guaranteed a bsod within a minute (which is funny cause i hadn't seen a bsod for years before getting an ati card).
funeralthirst said:
intel.
anyone ran an ati/amd gpu on linux? yeah... as bad as or worse than samsung on driver support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do actually =P havent had any problems, and actually had more problems getting my friends Nvidia working in linux =/ My build runs great and I can OC to 3.5ghz on my phenom II 920 2.8ghz(i got one when they first came out =D, and could go higher if i didnt skimp out on the MB and only spend 90$ on one =3)
PS, this isnt a desktop/laptop question, think of TABs / Phones when making an answer =]
ECOTOX said:
I do actually =P havent had any problems, and actually had more problems getting my friends Nvidia working in linux =/ My build runs great and I can OC to 3.5ghz on my phenom II 920 2.8ghz(i got one when they first came out =D, and could go higher if i didnt skimp out on the MB and only spend 90$ on one =3)
PS, this isnt a desktop/laptop question, think of TABs / Phones when making an answer =]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
consider yourself lucky. i've never, ever had a problem with nvidia in linux. with ati, i tried fedora, opensuse, mandriva, and ubuntu. ubuntu would work in 9.10 but only the stock kernel (from the live cd), any kernel update would kill everything. finally i was able to get 10.10 installed, and 11.04 hasn't given me any problems. but i still can't run any other distro.
and sure, this isn't about desktops or laptops, but android is linux and if their driver support sucks in linux, i expect it to suck in android as well.
Ati/Amd gpu's are the best point blank nothing to it there should be no argument :-/
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
funeralthirst said:
intel.
anyone ran an ati/amd gpu on linux? yeah... as bad as or worse than samsung on driver support.
really? my 5770 couldn't even consistently pull 30fps in css (which is, what, 7 years old now?) on high settings. and when i added a second 5770 in crossfire and play css i'm guaranteed a bsod within a minute (which is funny cause i hadn't seen a bsod for years before getting an ati card).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
funeralthirst said:
consider yourself lucky. i've never ever had a problem with nvidia in linux. with ati, i tried fedora, opensuse, mandriva, and ubuntu. ubuntu would work in 9.10 but only the stock kernel (from the live cd), any kernel update would kill everything. finally i was able to get 10.10 installed, and 11.04 hasn't given me any problems. but i still can't run any other distro.
and sure, this isn't about desktops or laptops, but android is linux and if their driver support sucks in linux, i expect it to suck in android as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah but dont you think if they did enter that market they would provide the needed support for the android based devices? I havent had any problems for years with AMD GPUs and linux, and Every driver update I just install and go no matter kernel or distro I have used (I mostly use Ubuntu though). I guess it really is based on experience =P I see it this way though, as of right now you can max out Left4Dead 2 on an AMD APU, you get maybe 13fps on an Intel. The laptop market is where we can best compare, and Idk about you but if I'm getting a Tab or phone I'm not looking for something to crunch data (which we all know intel does better), I want a rich and smooth UI, games that look amazing, and light weight and low power consumption (IMO both companies are doing ALOT better with TDP but still have a ways to go)
I know it's a little too early for this thread but it's going to be an interesting topics which will be debated endlessly in the next couple months. Lets face it, CES did little to convince us either options will be superior.
Background information:
Windows 8 seems to be designed for not only tablets in mind, but how the OS is intended to be used. In order to make this possible Mircosoft is designing a version of the OS to be used on ARM processors. ARM processors, found in today's tablets and smartphones, are designed for high preformance with low power consumption.
At the same time Intel has invested a lot of money and research to develop the Clover Trial Atom processor. The atom processors are the processors found in yesterdays notebooks but this new design is also intended for low power consumption.
Known Characteristics of Each:
ARM:
HTML 5 apps only
Possibly Metro UI Only
Low heat
Clover Trail:
x86 architecture. Legacy apps will be compatible as well as HTML 5 apps
Lower preformace than sandy bridge processors
Looking at the above list it seems easy to pick the clover trail but the arm processors are likely to offer better battery life.
Heat issues are also a historic known issue on x86 processors, will continue with clover trail? If a tablet requires a fan width becomes an issue.
I will continue to update the characteristic lists as updates come out so everyone can make the best informed decision possible.
-writing this from my iPad 2 which I can't wait to ditch for something in the Windows 8 flavor
Even on a tablet, I hate the win8 look. I just want my win7 desktop on my iPad 2 also.
I don't think W8 will be as innovative as they say. Windows-8 will either be a hit or a big miss.
I see at least one error in your description, however: Windows 8 on ARM will not be limited to only the HTML5+Javascript apps. They've already demonstrated applications compiled for ARM specifically (including MS Office), so it's safe to conclude we'll see both.
Personally, I LOVE the Metro UI. I think it's the most brilliant shift in UI design in the last 30 years.
For me, I'll be going Windows 8 on ARM and tossing my iPad to the side (probably sell it) as soon as it's available. I'll keep my Windows 7 desktop as-is for the sake of x86/x64 applications in a traditional interface, but Windows 8 is where the market's going. In spite of the naysayers, the odds of it failing are very, very small.
Even Windows Vista, which was a fairly awful product at launch, sold very well (not as well as XP or now 7, but still, well over 200 million units), so it's not remotely a stretch to think that Windows 8, which is slim, light and mind numbingly fast, will also sell well.
Intel's Medfield Atom has proven to be a better performer than the ARM A9 core while offering similar/better power consumption on paper. Personally I don't care for either. I'd rather get ULV Ivy Bridge and live with 4-5 hours of batterylife and probably 8-10 with a keyboard dock, if available.
A ULV Broadwell in 2014 will make all of this moot anyway, x86 chips are more powerful and has major productivity software on lock because of it. Intel is now taking heat/power consumption very seriously and Metro apps for the most part are cross platform so it's Intel's to lose, don't forget that.
dont bet against Intel.... their upcoming tri-gate and finfet tech are gonna put them right in the same league as ARM as far as power consumption is concerned..
if I were a betting man, I'd bet that ARM Windows will be a niche player, while x86 windows will continue to be the dominant flavor, even for tablets, because of Intel's ability to bring down power consumption and price.
That, plus the standardization of x86, and ability for users to install legacy apps + mess around with their OS in an easy way will sway the market far in x86's favor...
Windows 8 has one silver lining left, and that's the Office suite. Android still has no good alternative, and Apple as a killer office app, but not THE Office app.
As long as Microsoft has the mouse behave like a finger, with swiping etc.... Then they'll stand a chance. I wouldn't bet on MS though... for the consumer segment, they need strong solid partnerships, and so far they only have Nokia.
coolqf said:
Windows 8 has one silver lining left, and that's the Office suite. Android still has no good alternative, and Apple as a killer office app, but not THE Office app.
As long as Microsoft has the mouse behave like a finger, with swiping etc.... Then they'll stand a chance. I wouldn't bet on MS though... for the consumer segment, they need strong solid partnerships, and so far they only have Nokia.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? They have everyone for Windows 8. Android tablets aren't selling like their phone counterparts, are OEMs are waiting impatiently to jump on board with Windows 8. Windows still has many major productivity software for 3D rendering, design (pick any type), video, etc. Android has ICS's movie make and super gimped up Adobe touch apps. Android tablets are nothing more than giant mobile phones. Windows 8 tablets will be Metro touch apps that equal Android mobile apps plus all the desktop software we professionals use.
x86 is miles ahead of arm. as soon as dev's make arm ports of x86 apps i dont know if i will bother with windows 8 on arm until then
2 questions/thoughts... call it what you will.
1. ARM ver of Win8 will (or not?) be way more closed than current (traditional Windows approach) - sort of like Windows Phone is now. Meaning if you want an app you have to get it of the store (ONLY) not from any website like today with Windows. True or False?
If true... imho this is a very bad news for ARM ver of software.
Let say you live in Europe and you want/need program that is specific for US store only. What will you do in such case? Even iOS (bad, closed system, controlled by BIG, BAD APPLE) is more frindly about this tnah Android or Windows Phone.
2. Is it possible (for current ARM SOC's) to emulate x86 (in order to get older soft to work)? I dont think so.
On the other hand x86 should be more than capable to "pretend" it is ARM device . In such case having x86 W8 onboard means we cen als use ARM software if we want to need to (unless both x86 and ARM W8 will be lock tight - but than why would anyone jump of Win7????).
fact is we have no idea what RT will bring to the table or what the software will or will not be able to do, but if we look at the hardware we see a few notable differences
ARM, ultra low watt consumption (potentially good battery life), High performance BUT less grunt so to speak, cheaper price point
x86, higher power consumption(potentially a shorter battery life compared to ARM), High performance but more bang per buck, more expensive price point.
there is a distinct difference between the two models, a difference which I think will be very important. Most every day folk will not need more than ARM, for everyone else including many business users, x86 is there
Being able to run x86 code is my primary concern, im not talking heavy work, the programs are small and light, but x86 is essential for the time being for it to be flexible.
However provided RT isn't completely tied down like WP is AND is at a reasonable price point, I think it will make great inroads in the Low/Mid range tablet market.
I started looking into tablets after September last fall. I wanted something that would give me the most bang for the buck, or at least the minimum compromise. Things broke out in 3 general sections as mentioned previously: ARM, Atom/AMDCxx and X86/AMD (higher end iCore style).
As Windows 8 goes, there will be no real difference between Atom and X86. The instruction sets are the same. Both will support Metro and Windows Legacy apps.
ARM will only support Metro.
Price seems to break along those lines, but I found an exception.
I expect the ARM versions to run in the neighborhood of $400 and less; the Atom class to be in the $400 to $800; and the full X86 to be $600 and up. Of course equipment will also impact this price.
Probably, the most significant piece of equipment will be the screen. While pricing current machines for ARM and Atom (as well as X86), the 1366x1024 resolution was rare and it is required for a split screen feature of the Metro interface.
In the end, I picked a Dell Duo with a dual core hyperthreading Atom processor because it had the required resolution and the price was down as low as anything I could find. I also got a keyboard, but suffered the weight and short battery life.
Performance has been good in most situations, though tinkering with Unity 3d seems like a bad idea on the Atom with Windows 8 (but it's not a release OS yet). And performance lags a little in Unity 3d game execution, too.
Metro looks good to me so far.
So, for an iPad style consumption usage I think the ARM is probably going to work great. Dual core if you can get it.
For a little heavier usage and legacy aps, you'll want an Atom type systyem. I'd say dual core minimum.
And if you want superior performance with no compromise, as always, expect to put the green on the table.
Something on the subject:
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2173...V3&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Twitterfeed
Lurk said:
In the end, I picked a Dell Duo with a dual core hyperthreading Atom processor because it had the required resolution and the price was down as low as anything I could find. I also got a keyboard, but suffered the weight and short battery life.
Performance has been good in most situations, though tinkering with Unity 3d seems like a bad idea on the Atom with Windows 8 (but it's not a release OS yet). And performance lags a little in Unity 3d game execution, too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does internet video work for you on Win 8? What Atom is in your Duo?
I couldn't get netflix or hulu working well on an N280.
I am running 8 on an e-350 (Acer w500), and video works great, but the touch screen is poor around the edges like a number of other Windows 7 tablets where they were designed for accuracy in center, instead of across the board.
---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------
dazza9075 said:
There is a distinct difference between the two models, a difference which I think will be very important. Most every day folk will not need more than ARM, for everyone else including many business users, x86 is there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually expect a number of our business users on RT. We won't push them to it, but the option will probably be given.
Today they use:
Web based tools.
A few silverlight sites.
Office
We're likely to port our silverlight apps to METRO, first one took a little under a day. At that point, if they wanted an iPad like device, with the new news about sideloading: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstor...deploying-metro-style-apps-to-businesses.aspx
It is a pretty good fit.
Obviously designers, ops, etc are not going to find RT sufficient, but I expect a subset will. We have some that only use iPads today anyway.
michiganenginerd said:
How does internet video work for you on Win 8? What Atom is in your Duo?
I couldn't get netflix or hulu working well on an N280.
I am running 8 on an e-350 (Acer w500), and video works great, but the touch screen is poor around the edges like a number of other Windows 7 tablets where they were designed for accuracy in center, instead of across the board.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same question.
I had Asus 1201N (but it had dual core Atom 330 onboard + Nvidia ION card) - no problems with any video but it was HOT, VERY HOT and very noisy.
I kept Samsung NC10 (same atom chip as in 1201N but single core only and no ION). Watching any video on it is a nightmare :-(. Even YT is not working well.
How does internet video work for you on Win 8?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Internet video seems to be very good. Currently, things run fairly smoothly. The connection speed is a bigger impact than the processor speed.
Odd item. I just tested real quick and I can now play YouTube videos in the Metro browser. I guess they have the HTML 5 delivery working.
HD on Netflix is a little choppy right now and stutters in the desktop browser. It could be the connection.
What Atom is in your Duo?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
N570 @1.67ghz
I couldn't get netflix or hulu working well on an N280
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I worried about performkance. That's why I went for a dual core at a minimum. The earlier Duo had an N560(?) at 1.5ghz. I don't think it would be enough. Again, it might be the connection, but @ HD right now, it's borderline.
Of course. sometimes it comes down to the video card/processor, too.
I am running 8 on an e-350 (Acer w500), and video works great, but the touch screen is poor around the edges like a number of other Windows 7 tablets where they were designed for accuracy in center, instead of across the board.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't experienced any issues around the edges ... or any where on the screen. I am pleased overall with the unit and was a bit disappointed when they stopped producing them in December. But, it was largely a test unit.
Thanks for the info Lurk.
Clover Trail pics
I found this article while browsing on tabletpcreview forum.
An online writer Padmx Max, got access to Clover Trails and took some pics of the board and the processor: here is the link
http://www.padmx.com/portal.php?mod=view&aid=1707
The processor is actually stacked under the memory so you can't really see it.
But it is an interesting idea.
Not sure it is Intel Z2580 or z2760 tho.
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.
Hello!
This isn't relevant to hacking but I need to know about the AMD 8120 CPU, as if you guys are hacking windows 8 hopefully you'll be able to help me out here.
I'm building a new pc system but cannot seem to find anywhere on the internet if the 8120 has any sort of intergrated graphics?
Definitely not the right place to ask, but what the hell... the FX 8xxx series does not have any built-in graphics. There may be a low-end graphics chip built into the motherboard, however. Alternatively, AMD does have a line of CPU+GPU combined chips. They run a little underpowered as CPUs (even for AMD), being equivalent to Intel's i3 chips at best and usually not even that. However, they come with quite respectable middle-of-the-line GPUs, and for most games, that's what you need.
If you just need *some* sort of graphics and don't need it to be really gaming-quality, though, then you probably don't need one of those higher-end hybrids. I'd suggest that you look at the products on AMD.com, and do a search for motherboards with integrated graphics on your favorite product-comparison site (Newegg is my usual go-to, but I haven't bought much PC hardware in the last few years).
Adarzannh said:
Hello!
This isn't relevant to hacking but I need to know about the AMD 8120 CPU, as if you guys are hacking windows 8 hopefully you'll be able to help me out here.
I'm building a new pc system but cannot seem to find anywhere on the internet if the 8120 has any sort of intergrated graphics?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am an owner of an FX-8120. I can tell you like the last guy did that it doesn't have integrated graphics. It's an 8-core chip clocked at 3.2Ghz stock. Now granted, it may not have an GPU processor on the chip, but you can customize graphic settings to allow the chip to process all of the video rendering. Usually this results in poor performance as GPU chips are alot more efficient when processing graphics. I have a 560gtx and the 8120 clocked at 3.8ghz. I use the GPU to render. Honestly though, you should get a 2500k or an 2600k. I've had nothing but headaches with my 8120. It sucks alot of power, it gets really hot and it locks up quite a bit.
Hiya,
Im looking at getting a new tablet after getting a little annoyed with my asus t100.
The asus has the bay trail-T Atom Z3740 (t100) the other has a n9210 which is bay trail-M.
Is the bay trail-m more powerfull as i do not believe it has turbo boost. im looking at playing fm14 on the lowest settings so it does not need to be to powerfull as the Atom Z3740 could play it.
The new intel range is confusing me, is it Atom-Celeron-Pentium-Core-Xenon
Rich
Pentium and celeron are legacy products. Bay trail is encroaching on celeron anyway.
Xeon is not a consumer product line. Its for servers.
The current consumer product line is simply
Atom > Core i3 > Core i5 > Core i7. And even then, most consumers wont benefit from the i7.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
Pentium and celeron are legacy products. Bay trail is encroaching on celeron anyway.
Xeon is not a consumer product line. Its for servers.
The current consumer product line is simply
Atom > Core i3 > Core i5 > Core i7. And even then, most consumers wont benefit from the i7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ahhh right the tablet im looking at is this
http://www8.hp.com/uk/en/products/laptops/product-detail.html?oid=6420758#!tab=specs
which says it has a celeron which is a bay trail-m product
SixSixSevenSeven said:
Pentium and celeron are legacy products. Bay trail is encroaching on celeron anyway.
Xeon is not a consumer product line. Its for servers.
The current consumer product line is simply
Atom > Core i3 > Core i5 > Core i7. And even then, most consumers wont benefit from the i7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pentium and Celeron are upgraded every time the i3/5/7 family gets upgraded, so I wouldn't call them legacy.
They are more like lower end versions of the above.
I would say Celeron is somewhere in between an i3 and an atom.
With that said, i doubt the performance is noticeable.
Cool that's what I was looking for thought it would be a middle kinda ground between atom and i3
Sent from my C6903 using xda app-developers app
Both are Bay Trail, but are targeted at different platforms. The T100's Z3740 is designed for tablets,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76759
while the Celeron N2910 is for entry notebooks,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76752
with higher SDP (4.5W vs 2W), higher clock (1.6GHz vs 1.3GHz), and can run 64-bit Win (all Bay Trail tablets are 32-bit only, until next year).
Even without Turbo, the N2910 is faster since it runs at 20% higher clock. That would be a noticeable difference. But still, we're talking about an Atom here. The downside is higher power use, hence the 2nd batt in the base of your model.
BTW, the US version of your mentioned hybrid is a bit better with a Pentium N3510, which is also a Bay Trail M, but has a base clock of 2GHz.
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/HP-Pavilion/E4V88AV
http://ark.intel.com/products/76751
BTW, note that these come with Windows 8, not 8.1.
Thanks for that will have a look at the one you have said.
I know it has 8 but won't it get the free 8.1 update?
Sent from my C6903 using xda app-developers app
Just because you can upgrade to 8.1, doesn't mean you should. HP hasn't certify 8.1 for this model, and Bay Trail already has enough bleeding edge problems with driver support.
More issues: wifi is bgn, ie 2.4GHz only; Miracast won't be possible. 11.6" screen is only 1366x768. Unit is heavy at 3.3lbs (1.71lbs sans base). Battery life is probably poor. No freebie Office like for the smaller 10" devices. On the plus side, you do get 4GB RAM rather than 2GB.
At $600 US, it's expensive. The main reason is Intel's chip pricing. Cel N2910's pricing is $132 retail (HP would've paid less), Z3740 is reportedly $30. The large difference isn't because of performance, but platform positioning. It's likely why Bay Trail T is 32-bit only, because Intel doesn't want it to cannibalize sales of higher-margin parts. It was the same with the netbook.
Even at $30, Bay Trail isn't competitive with ARM SoCs. Intel reportedly will lower Bay Trail parts to $15-20 in 2014.
http://tablet-news.com/2013/10/15/intel-preparing-cheap-bay-trail-chips-for-2014/
To date, there hasn't been many device roll-out for Bay Trail. Pricing is one reason why. Not many people will pay $500-600 for a Bay Trail hybrid, or $300 for a 8" tablet (except for Apple's of course). Asus T100 hits a good price point, but as you found, it has major compromises.
The second reason is that Win 8.1 is a yawner. It may not have the hate that Win 8 engendered, but there is no consumer enthusiasm for it. Going into this shopping season, the hope was that Haswell and Bay Trail, along with 8.1, would kick-start Windows sales. Doesn't look like that will happen. Now you know the real reason why Ballmer is crying his way out the door.
e.mote,
Just because a CPU has higher clock it doesn't mean it is actually better.
An 1Gz i5 is better than an 1.8 ghz Atom. It is all about the architecture, so you can't compare them like that. Celeron is faster than Atom, but the difference won't be noticeable in daily usage (inbefore benchmarks: they are pretty useless for daily usage performance)
As for windows 8/8.1, we understand you can't get your head around using it, but you shouldn't present "general consensus facts" which are exactly the opposite in reality.
>An 1Gz i5 is better than an 1.8 ghz Atom. It is all about the architecture, so you can't compare them like that.
You need to get yourself educated. The above discussion is about the same Silvermont architecture. There is no Core here. The Celeron/Pentium/whatever are brandings applied. A Bay Trail M running at 1.6 or 2GHz is faster than a Bay Trail T at 1.33, period. It is that simple.
>which are exactly the opposite in reality
I'm sure the fanboy's version of reality is indeed different.
e.mote said:
It's likely why Bay Trail T is 32-bit only
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't likely why the Bay Trail T is 32 bit only because Bay Trail T isn't 32 bit only.
Its 64 bit. Go check ark.intel.com yourself, or even the thread on this very forum where someone is attempting to boot linux on the T100.
http://ark.intel.com/products/76759/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3740-2M-Cache-up-to-1_86-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/78416/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3740D-2M-Cache-up-to-1_86-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/76752/Intel-Celeron-Processor-N2910-2M-Cache-1_60-GHz
Celeron drops the variable clock speeds but has a higher RAM cap but at a lower frequency. Celeron maximum graphics core clock is higher, although it doesnt say what the minimum is and is lacking a few extra features.
The celeron will always run at 1.6ghz as opposed to the atom branded chip being 1.33 and then occasionally overclocking itself to 1.86
---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------
e.mote said:
>which are exactly the opposite in reality
I'm sure the fanboy's version of reality is indeed different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not like you ever substantiate or provide any evidence to your claims that "everyone hates modern", "no one can use desktop in 8 or modern on desktops" or whatever other claims you have made at some point. He has a point
>It isn't likely why the Bay Trail T is 32 bit only because Bay Trail T isn't 32 bit only
Yes, the Silvermont architecture is 64-bit, which is why it can support 64-bit Win in the M line. As abundantly said, that the T line is 32-bit-(OS)-only is because of market positioning, not a technical deficiency.
>Celeron drops the variable clock speeds [etc]...
Yes, thanks for regurgitating my words back to me. I'm sure it's all worthwhile.
>Its not like you ever substantiate or provide any evidence to your claims that "everyone hates modern", "no one can use desktop in 8 or modern on desktops" or whatever other claims you have made at some point. He has a point
Does anybody ever provide evidence for anything on views espoused herein? Do you? Do you ever stop putting words in other people's mouth, as these above?
You want evidence that "8.1 has no consumer enthusiasm"? Look around in this very forum. See anyone jumping for joy at 8.1's features and improvements? See people lining up to buy 8.1 boxes? You think MS is turning itself upside down, and Ballmer bawling his guts out on stage because he's happy of the great Windows sales?
just out of curiosity is the baytrail atom chipset as powerful as the core 2 duo or duo core laptop cpu from 2007-2009 time frame.
rkoforever90 said:
just out of curiosity is the baytrail atom chipset as powerful as the core 2 duo or duo core laptop cpu from 2007-2009 time frame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As fast as a low end Penryn chip. For reference my P9700 @2.8ghz scores 2600 on geekbench 3 and the bay trail gets 2900. Note the bench is multicore and 32bit settings. However according to cinebench r11.5 my P9700 has higher single & multi core performance, but only slightly.
Also bay t z3740 gets 3343 in cinebench r10 and my laptop gets 6100, so bay is likely close to low end Penyrn or 1st gen i3.
Sent with Virtue
e.mote said:
>An 1Gz i5 is better than an 1.8 ghz Atom. It is all about the architecture, so you can't compare them like that.
You need to get yourself educated. The above discussion is about the same Silvermont architecture. There is no Core here. The Celeron/Pentium/whatever are brandings applied. A Bay Trail M running at 1.6 or 2GHz is faster than a Bay Trail T at 1.33, period. It is that simple.
>which are exactly the opposite in reality
I'm sure the fanboy's version of reality is indeed different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
e.mote said:
Both are Bay Trail, but are targeted at different platforms. The T100's Z3740 is designed for tablets,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76759 => celeron
while the Celeron N2910 is for entry notebooks,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76752 => atom
Then you proceed to compare their clock speeds
with higher SDP (4.5W vs 2W), higher clock (1.6GHz vs 1.3GHz), and can run 64-bit Win (all Bay Trail tablets are 32-bit only, until next year).
Even without Turbo, the N2910 is faster since it runs at 20% higher clock. That would be a noticeable difference. But still, we're talking about an Atom here. The downside is higher power use, hence the 2nd batt in the base of your model.
BTW, the US version of your mentioned hybrid is a bit better with a Pentium N3510, which is also a Bay Trail M, but has a base clock of 2GHz.
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/HP-Pavilion/E4V88AV
http://ark.intel.com/products/76751
BTW, note that these come with Windows 8, not 8.1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel Atom is a different architecture than the rest of the intel family processors.Celeron belongs in the same family as the core processors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
Therefore, your CPU clock comparison between intel atom and celeron is null.
You should probably change your avatar image.
PS:this is more of a technical support forum than anything else. People don't usually end up on XDA developers if they do not have a problem. This is how i found about this forum too: I had a problem. There is no point in saying a technical support forum is a good indicator of how good or bad a software is.
mcosmin222 said:
Intel Atom is a different architecture than the rest of the intel family processors.Celeron belongs in the same family as the core processors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
Therefore, your CPU clock comparison between intel atom and celeron is null.
You should probably change your avatar image.
PS:this is more of a technical support forum than anything else. People don't usually end up on XDA developers if they do not have a problem. This is how i found about this forum too: I had a problem. There is no point in saying a technical support forum is a good indicator of how good or bad a software is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Current celeron chips it seems intel have simply taken the silvermont core from bay trail and slapped the celeron branding on so they are one and the same now beyond what I have apparently regurgitated at e.mote yet he never actually said.
e.mote said:
>It isn't likely why the Bay Trail T is 32 bit only because Bay Trail T isn't 32 bit only
Yes, the Silvermont architecture is 64-bit, which is why it can support 64-bit Win in the M line. As abundantly said, that the T line is 32-bit-(OS)-only is because of market positioning, not a technical deficiency.
>Celeron drops the variable clock speeds [etc]...
Yes, thanks for regurgitating my words back to me. I'm sure it's all worthwhile.
>Its not like you ever substantiate or provide any evidence to your claims that "everyone hates modern", "no one can use desktop in 8 or modern on desktops" or whatever other claims you have made at some point. He has a point
Does anybody ever provide evidence for anything on views espoused herein? Do you? Do you ever stop putting words in other people's mouth, as these above?
You want evidence that "8.1 has no consumer enthusiasm"? Look around in this very forum. See anyone jumping for joy at 8.1's features and improvements? See people lining up to buy 8.1 boxes? You think MS is turning itself upside down, and Ballmer bawling his guts out on stage because he's happy of the great Windows sales?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Want to ignore intels own documents showing that BayTrail T is 64 bit? want to ignore people on this very forum booting 64 bit OSes on Bay Trail T? want to continue stating its 32 bit when it isn't? Fine by me, perhaps you profile picture is rather accurate. And before you claim I am putting words in peoples mouth with this post, its a direct unedited quote although you do seem incapable of ever using the quote button.
Windows sales at this point in time are actually showing a similar market share to when windows 7 was released. Desktop/Laptop PC sales have fallen as a whole according to many analysts as tablet sales gain ground with consumers.
This forum cannot be used as evidence. The forum is technical support. In general you find that most of the people who are happy with a product do not come here to give it praises, they just carry on using it as they do. People come here when they have an issue. Of course people arent going to be jumping for joy when they have come here to ask how to do something (which 99% of the time isnt even a windows 8 exclusive issue).
The new atoms are silver mount tho arnt they as they are bay trail chips
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Celeron-N2910-Notebook-Processor.101602.0.html
Sent from my C6903 using xda app-developers app
>The new atoms are silver mount tho arnt they as they are bay trail chips
Yes, they are. Please ignore the noise. OK, you can ask for your money back!
BTW thanks to the hoi polloi for setting Mcosmin gal straight on the Cel thing. I would add something, but I don't wanna be accused of piling on the handicapped.
>This forum cannot be used as evidence. The forum is technical support.
Such an emphatic statement! But sadly, wrong. This forum is NOT tech support. Do read the header. It's a general discussion area for Win8. People help out because they want to, not because it's their designated task. People come here to jaw about Win8, as we are doing. Evidence? We love evidence! You have some for us, yes?
>Windows sales at this point in time are actually showing a similar market share to when windows 7 was released.
Oh, really! I'm sure that'd be news to many, especially to MS. Since you're so fond of "evidence," where is it? Please, do tell! Love to see which version of reality you reside in.
Then again, facts aren't something you're used to, so let me help ya out. From the horse's mouth:
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/...year-more-than-240-million-licenses-sold.aspx
"As of September [2010], Windows 7 was running on 93% of new consumer PCs and has over 17% global OS market share (according to Net Applications as of October 1st)"
Per Net Applications, at end of Oct 2010, one year after its release, Win7's market share was 18.9%.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/repor...+7&qpcustomb=0&qpsp=2009&qpnp=2&qptimeframe=Y
Meanwhile,
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/...ling-first-time-windows-8-1-takes-1-72-share/
"The latest market share data from Net Applications shows that October 2013 was a slow one for Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 combined...[at] 9.25 percent."
Yes, 18.9% is indeedy VERY SIMILAR to 9.25%. Gotta love the new math they teach in schools nowaday. (Yes we're assuming the little fella did see the inside of a school at some point...OK it's a possibility.)
Hey wanna see something to warm your cockles?
http://www.netmarketshare.com/opera...11&qpcustomb=0&qpsp=165&qpnp=13&qptimeframe=M
Going great guns is Win 8.x! Gosh at this torrid pace it might even get to 10% by next century!
>In general you find that most of the people who are happy with a product do not come here to give it praises, they just carry on using it as they do.
Uh oh, more generalizations with NO EVIDENCE. What would Mcosmin lass say!
Yes yes I know them well...the unsung "silent majority" toiling away in the shadow of your imagination. If only they would RISE UP AND BE COUNTED, the world would be a happier place. I'm sure they will do it tomorrow.
Census count! ARE YE A HAPPY WIN8 USER? If yes, go buy smore Win toys and help Ballmer keep his job!
So, what's next on the fanboy scapegoating list? Should we blame the marketing, or do we go after the biased MSM peeps? Heck I'm kinda partial to the breakdancing Catholic school tots. They got tudes. OK it's the bloggers' fault.