Database Users

[Rumor]Samsung Galaxy S III is powered by Exynos 4412 Quad-core at 1.5Ghz

I just got a Galaxy S II and now Samsung is gearing up for the Galaxy III powered by Exynos 4412 @ 1.5Ghz.
Sources:
http://pinoydroid.net/samsung-galaxy-iii-quadcore-smartphone-samsung-exynox-4412
http://androidandme.com/2011/11/new...-exynos-4412-could-power-samsung-galaxy-s-iii
http://www.devicemag.com/2011/11/22...e-powered-by-quad-core-exynos-4412-processor/

Come at me bro

That would be very nice. A little sad I couldn't upgrade to the GS II but I think I can shell out for a new phone next year and a quad core Galaxy S would fit the bill.
I kinda want a galaxy Nexus, I missed out on the N1 so I do want a pure google device but samsung just gets it so right. Can't wait to see what they do with ICS.
Sent from my GT - I9000M running Tornado JVR Gold with Tornado kernel.

wtf do we need a quad core phone for when very little use dual core. Now quad core on a tablet i can somewhat understand

Gonna stick with the SGS2, unless of course the SGS3 has improved everything in which case I'll get it on launch day..

Seems pointless to me.... quad core will b battery hungry and bare use both cores on gs2 lol. Meeeeh
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium

Overkill...

I this going to be the future of Android, constant hardware updates that totally outdo the previous model in a matter of months, its already a fragmented nightmare, coders cant cope with dual core, let along quad, to be honest I am getting fed up with the constant changing and new models all the time, getting ridiculous

na its for tablets. a dual A15 with A7 more likely.

THUDUK said:
I this going to be the future of Android, constant hardware updates that totally outdo the previous model in a matter of months, its already a fragmented nightmare, coders cant cope with dual core, let along quad, to be honest I am getting fed up with the constant changing and new models all the time, getting ridiculous
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then don't upgrade! you forget the other millions who didnt update this year and will be looking at 2012 for the latest and greatest. Where is the sense in wanting an Apple like crawl in progression. Android gives companies like Samsung the freedom to concentrate on the hardware. It can only be a good thing for the consumer. What I take from your post is "WWAaaAaa my fones not the bestest anymore!!11!!"

androidkid311 said:
Seems pointless to me.... quad core will b battery hungry and bare use both cores on gs2 lol. Meeeeh
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I do agree that it is somewhat pointless at this point in time, it's a common misconception that newer CPUs = more power usage. By that logic, a Core i7 will consume more power than the Core 2 Quad, which it does not.
CPU manufacturers control power consumption in a number of ways. The most common is a die shrink, manufacturing the CPU at a smaller level. The Exynos is a 45nm chip, and the next generation is supposed to be 28nm. Thus, we can expect power consumption to stay the same, or even decrease.
The other way is through the use of core gating. The OS simply shuts off the cores that are not in use, and wakes them up when they are needed.
Hopefully this helps to clear up some of the misunderstandings regarding CPUs and power consumption.

quad core has already been stated to be more battery friendly and the tegra3 chips is very clever only using more cores when needed and even having a stealth 5th core for mega low idle speeds
obvously the exynos is not a tegra3 but i am sure samsung will do some clever stuff too
quad core will be awesome , i am happy with my dual core sgs2 so wont upgrade for a while ive also bought extras etc so its not worth upgrading for me , however that doesnt stop quad core from being gooooooooooood
have you seen the gfx power it will bring , the extra camera capabillities it allows the manufactuers to use , the speed that the browser will work , how smooth the ui transisitions and scrolling will be even when multi tasking , it also brings support for up to 2gb of ram which alone is great stuff everyone knows the only thing better then ram is more ram
i think if we want our mobile to be proper mobile computers connected to bluetooth keyboards and usb hardrives then linked up to hdmi or dlna while doing back ground tasks , followed by some high end intensive 3d gaming with a bluetooth pad over hdmi while still doing background tasks , encoding high quality media on the fly and editing it without having to wait an age for it to finalise then qua core is a great thing as is the way that tech is moving so fast
the only problem i can see is fragmentation as things move so quick
its got to make it hard for devs etc which in the long turn could damage the platform a bit , however i am sure it will come to the point it will smooth out and tech wont accelerate so fast , maybe? lol
nvidia have a road map and it shows that they will be releasing a new cpu/gpu combo each year for at least the next 3-4 years before they think we will be at mobile maximum potenial , so get ready for this tradition to carry on for a while yet

Sadly I think this fragmentation might become a very big problem in the future, and is one area where Apple is unfortunately right.
Look at PC Gaming. A lot of people buy PCs not knowing exactly what the PC they bought at capable of. When it fails to run Battlefield 3 at an acceptable framerate they are not going to be happy.
For us techies, it's easy to know that you need at least a GTX 560Ti or something, but for Joe Sixpack out there they obviously don't know these things.
I think perhaps Google should enforce some sort of system requirement rating system. Give it a number scale to make it simple. So maybe the SGS2 scores 9/10, and Contract Killer requires a phone with at least 7 to run smoothly. So Joe Sixpack who bought a Galaxy 3 GT-i5800 that scores a 3 doesn't get all pissed off.
Hope I'm making sense here.

Nah fragmentation will be fine. Pc is still the choice for gamers over Apple mac, not including consoles. Transfer that to mobile phones, and as long as the android mobiles become popular enough, games will be great for them. Everyone will just know they have to have a good mobile just like their pc.

I read somewhere it would feature the AMD's new 8 core bulldozer CPU with nVidias GTX 590 in SLI.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

i dont really understand people complaining about fragmentation. Android isnt a phone, it isnt a manufacturer, its an operating system. Do people complain the laptop market is fragmented because some computers are on xp, vista or 7? Some are on faster processors than others? Did people ever complain that symbian updated on some phones but not others?
I just dont get it, Id rather new phones/tech come out than only one release every 18 months.

Who cares? My upgrade isn't due until 2013... When I will get the top of the line handset again. I'm sure that model will be usurped within 4-6 months too.
Maybe we should all keep our phones in their original packaging like toy collectors, so they can't contribute to the disastrous fragmentation issue.
The actual effect of this media-inspired phenomena on consumers is negligible.

LOL sorry - had to point out the galaxy s III still has an 8mp camera. =p
Almost sounded like the Samsung Nexus with the 5mp camera... ahaha.
Just kidding. The phone should be solid. =)

Samsung g3 will be have 1.8 ghz processor not 1.5 ghz and will be dual core
Sent from my GT-I9100

biffsmash said:
Pc is still the choice for gamers over Apple mac, not including consoles
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android phones vs iPhone is basically like PC vs console since PC has a billion different hardware and software configs where as a console as 1 (There are a few iPhones but you generally only support the latest 2-3 versions).

Dualcore processor processing

Hi,
I was wondering if the 2 CPU's are working simultaneously together? or I'st just 1?., I'm using FLEXREAPER X10 ICS 4.0.3 . Sometimes I get screen glitches .... when My tab is trying to sleep and I touched the screen. Also...when I try the benchmark it only say's the CPU1 processing speed... & etc. Also when I'm browsing in the Playstore the screen animation is a bit lag... Can some1 enlighten me...or is there an app for this? than can force 2 cpu to work all the time together.?

Yes, both cores are enabled at all times. But no, you cannot make an application use both cores unless the application was designed to do so.

FLEXREAPER X10 ICS 4.0.3 base a leak rom ICS, not a stable rom, so it has some problems.

Your benchmark is correct.
There are NOT 2 CPU's. There is only one CPU, with 2 cores. It doesn't process two applications at once, it CAN process two threads of the same application at the same time. Think of it as this: two CPUs would be two people writing on different pieces of paper.A single CPU with two cores would be one person writing with both hands at the same time. He can only write on the same piece of paper, but it's faster then it would be if he was writing with only one hand.
Note: this is not related to multi-task. Multi-tasking works based on processing a little bit of each app at a time, so altough it may seen that both are running at the same time, it is not.
Most apps are not designed to work with threads though, so there's your (actually, our) problem. But this is not an A500 problem, it applies to any multi-core processor based devices ou there (including desktops).

danc135 said:
There are NOT 2 CPU's. There is only one CPU, with 2 cores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Essentially true, but...
It doesn't process two applications at once
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
False. Two cores is just two CPUs on the same die.

Thanks for the response guys... I'm getting bit confused with this "multi-core processor".... I was expecting that it is fast to no lag, during browsing apps in my lib,switching application, even browsing in The PlAYSTORE". So It's correct to say that multi-core processor is a bit of a waste if an app can't use it's full/all cores potential? Also if the UI of an OS can't use all cores at the same time?

Dual Core, Dual CPU....
Not entirely, because if the kernel is capable of multi-threading, then it can use one core to run services while another is running the main application. The UI is only another application running on top of the kernel...
The only difference between a dual core Intel cpu and a dual core tegra 2 is the instruction set and basic capabilities, otherwise they can be thought of as essentially the same animal. The kernel, which is the core of the OS, handles the multi-tasking, but android has limited multi-tasking capabilities for Applications. Even so, services that run in the background are less of a hindrance on a dual core cpu than a single core one, and more and more applications are being written to take advantage of multiple cores.
Just have a bunch of widgets running on your UI, and you are looking at multi-tasking and multi-threading. Which are both better on multi-core processors.

A multiple core cpu are not more then one processor stacked on one die. They thread and load balance thru software.Applications MUST BE AWARE Of multi core cpus to take advantage of the dual cores.
A multiple Processor computer has a 3rd processor chip on the main board. this chip balances the load on hardware. this does not add over head on the processors. as on a Dual multi CORE CHIP. has a much higher load overhead.
SO Many people confuse the two. This is due to how the companies market the muticore cpu devices .
So a application that can not thread itself on a multi core chip will run in one of the cpu cores. a threaded app can well guess?
a dual Processor computer can run non multi thread aware app or program on two cores..
Its quite simply complicated..

You can throw all the hardware you want at a system. In the end, if the software sucks (not multi-threaded, poorly optimized, bad at resource management, etc...), it's still going to perform bad.
Dual core doesn't mean it can run one applicaton at twice speed, it means that it can run two applications at full speed, given that they're not threaded. Android's largely meant to run one application foregrounded, and since they can't magically make every application multi-threaded, you won't be seeing the benefits of multiple cores as much as you will on a more traditional platform.
Also, a dual-core tegra 2 is good, but only in comparison to other ARM processors (and even then, it's starting to show its age.) It's going to perform poorly compared to a full x86 computer, even one that's older.

netham45 said:
You can throw all the hardware you want at a system. In the end, if the software sucks (not multi-threaded, poorly optimized, bad at resource management, etc...), it's still going to perform bad.
Dual core doesn't mean it can run one applicaton at twice speed, it means that it can run two applications at full speed, given that they're not threaded. Android's largely meant to run one application foregrounded, and since they can't magically make every application multi-threaded, you won't be seeing the benefits of multiple cores as much as you will on a more traditional platform.
Also, a dual-core tegra 2 is good, but only in comparison to other ARM processors (and even then, it's starting to show its age.) It's going to perform poorly compared to a full x86 computer, even one that's older.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is so true . With the exception of a TRUE Server dual OR Quad processor computer.. There is a special on board chip that will thread application calls to balance the load for non threaded programs and games..My first dual processor computer was a amd MP3000 back when dual cpu computers started to be within user price ranges. Most applications/programs did not multi thread .
And yes as far as computer speed and performance you will not gain any from this. but only will feel less lag when running several programs at once.a 2.8 ghz dual processor computer still runs at 2.8 not double that.

erica_renee said:
With the exception of a TRUE Server dual OR Quad processor computer.. There is a special on board chip that will thread application calls to balance the load for non threaded programs and games..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually this is incorrect. All such decisions are left to the OS's own scheduler, for multiple reasons: the CPU cannot know what kind of tasks it is to run, what should be given priority under which conditions and so on, like e.g. on a desktop PC interactive, user-oriented and in-focus applications and tasks are usually given more priority than background-tasks, whereas on a server one either gives all tasks similar priority or handles tasks priorities based on task-grouping. Not to mention realtime operating system which have entirely different requirements altogether.
If it was left to the CPU the performance gains would be terribly limited and could not be adjusted for different kinds of tasks and even operating systems.
(Not that anyone cares, I just thought to pop in and rant a little...)

Self correction
I said a multi-core processor only runs threads from the same process. That is wrong (thanks to my Computer Architecture professor for misleading me). It can run multiple threads from different processes, which would constitute true parallel processing. It's just better to stick with same process threads because of shared memory within the processor. Every core has its own cache memory (level 1 caches), and shared, on-die level 2 caches.
It all depends on the OS scheduler, really.
With ICS (and future Android versions), I hope the scheduler will improve to get the best of multi-core.
In the end though, it won't matter if applications aren't multi-thread (much harder to code). What I mean is, performance will be better, but not as better as it could be if developers used a lot of multi-threading.
To answer hatyrei's question, yes, it is a waste, in the sense that it has too much untapped potential.

Android and Multi-Core Processor

Bell points the finger at chipset makers - "The way it's implemented right now, Android does not make as effective use of multiple cores as it could, and I think - frankly - some of this work could be done by the vendors who create the SoCs, but they just haven't bothered to do it. Right now the lack of software effort by some of the folks who have done their hardware implementation is a bigger disadvantage than anything else."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you think about this guys?

He knows his stuff.
Sent from my GT-I9300

i would take it with a pinch of salt, though there are not many apps that takes advantage of multi core processor lets see what intel will tell when they have thier own dual core processor out in the market

Pretty good valid arguments for the most part.
I mostly agree though, but I think android makes good use of up to 2 cores. Anything more than that it doesn't at all.

There is a huge chunk of the article missing too.
Sent from my GT-I9300

full article

jaytana said:
What do you think about this guys?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think they should all be covered in honey and then thrown into a pit full of bears and Honey bees. And the bears should have like knives ductaped to their feet and the bees stingers should be dipped in chilli sauce.

Reckless187 said:
I think they should all be covered in honey and then thrown into a pit full of bears and Honey bees. And the bears should have like knives ductaped to their feet and the bees stingers should be dipped in chilli sauce.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow, saying Android isn't ready for multip-core deserves such treatment? or this guy had committed more serious crime previously?

Actually is a totally fail but in android 5 I think it's can be solved
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA

This was a serious problem on desktop Windows OS as well back when multi cores first starting coming out. I remember having to download patches for certain games and in other cases, having to set the CPU affinity to run certain games/apps with only one core so that it wouldn't freeze up. I am sure Android will move forward with multi-core support in the future.

simollie said:
wow, saying Android isn't ready for multip-core deserves such treatment? or this guy had committed more serious crime previously?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a harsh but fair punishment imo. They need to sort that sh*t out as its totally unacceptable or they're gonna get a taste of the Cat o Nine Tails.

Android kernel is based on Linux. So this is suggesting the Linux kernel is not built to support multi-core either. Not true. There is a reason the SGS3 gets 5000+ in Quadrant, the the San Diego only gets 3000+. And the San Diego is running 200MHz faster.
Just look at the blue bar here. http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/31/orange-san-diego-benchmarks/ . My SGS3 got over 2.5K on just CPU alone.

What Intel said was true. Android is multicore aware but the os and apps aren't taking advantage of it. When this user disabled 2 cores on the HTC one x it made no difference at all in anything other than benchmarks.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=26094852&postcount=3

Disabling the CPU cores will do nothing to the GPU, hence still getting 60 FPS. And you say that like you expected to see a difference. Those games may not be particularly CPU intensive, thats why they continue to run fine. They will more than likely be GPU limited.
Android is not a difficult OS to run, thats why it can run on the G1, or AOKP can run smooth as silk on my i9000. If it can run smooth as silk on one 2yr old 1GHz chip, how COULD it go faster on a next-gen chip like in the SGS3 or HOX? In terms of just using the phone, ive not experienced any lag at all.
If youre buying a phone with dual/quad CPU cores, and only expecting to use it as a phone (i.e, not play demanding games/benchmark/mod/what ever else), of course you wont see any advantage, and you may feel cheated. And if you disable those extra cores, and still only use it as a phone, of course you wont notice any difference.
If a pocket calculator appears to calculate 1+1 instantly, and a HOX also calculates 1+1 instantly, Is the pocket calculator awesome, is the HOX not using all its cores, or is what it is being asked to do simply not taxing enough to use all the CPU power the HOX has got?

I've been hearing this for some time now and is one of the reasons I didn't care that we weren't getting the quad core version of the GS3

916x10 said:
I've been hearing this for some time now and is one of the reasons I didn't care that we weren't getting the quad core version of the GS3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay folks... firstly linux kernel, which android is based on, is aware of multicore (its obvious) but most the applications are not aware, thats true!.. but is not the android which to blame neither the SoC makers. This is like the flame intel made that they wanted to say their single core can do faster to a dual core arm LOL, (maybe intel will make 1 core has 4 threads or 8 threads) <- imposibruuu for now dunno later
you will notice the core usage while playing HD video that require cpu to decode (better core decode fastly)... and im not sure single core intel does better to arm dual core.. ~haha~
but for average user the differences are not noticable.. if intel aiming for this market yes that make sense... but android user are above average user.. they will optimize its phone eventually IMO

What they have failed to disclose is which SoC they did their test on and their methodology. Not much reason to doubt what he's saying but you gotta remember that Intel only have a single core mobile SoC currently and are aiming to get a foothold in the mobile device ecosystem so part of this could be throwing salt on competing products as it's something that should be taken care of by Google optimising the CPU scheduling algorithms of their OS.

The problem is in the chip set. I currently attend SUNY Oswego and a professor of mine Doug Lea works on many concurrent structures. He is currently working on the ARM spec sheet that is used to make chips. The bench marks that he has done shows that no matter how lucky or unlucky you get, the time that it takes to do a concurrent process is about the same where on desktop chips there is a huge difference between best case and worse case. The blame falls on the people that make the chips for now. They need to change how it handles concurrent operations and then if android still cant use multi-core processors then it falls on the shoulders of google.
that is my two cents on the whole situation. Just finished concurrency with Doug and after many talks this is my current opinion.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA

Flynny75 said:
Disabling the CPU cores will do nothing to the GPU, hence still getting 60 FPS. And you say that like you expected to see a difference. Those games may not be particularly CPU intensive, thats why they continue to run fine. They will more than likely be GPU limited.
Android is not a difficult OS to run, thats why it can run on the G1, or AOKP can run smooth as silk on my i9000. If it can run smooth as silk on one 2yr old 1GHz chip, how COULD it go faster on a next-gen chip like in the SGS3 or HOX? In terms of just using the phone, ive not experienced any lag at all.
If youre buying a phone with dual/quad CPU cores, and only expecting to use it as a phone (i.e, not play demanding games/benchmark/mod/what ever else), of course you wont see any advantage, and you may feel cheated. And if you disable those extra cores, and still only use it as a phone, of course you wont notice any difference.
If a pocket calculator appears to calculate 1+1 instantly, and a HOX also calculates 1+1 instantly, Is the pocket calculator awesome, is the HOX not using all its cores, or is what it is being asked to do simply not taxing enough to use all the CPU power the HOX has got?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't mean daily task doesn't need the cpu power. When I put my sgs 3 in power save mode which cut back the cpu to 800mHz, I feel the lag instantly when scrolling around and navigating the internet. So I can conclude that performance per core is still much more important than number of cores. There isn't any performance difference either with the dual core sensation xe running beside the single core sensational xl.

The hardware needs to be out for developers to have incentive to make use of it. It's not like Android was built from the ground up to utilize 4 cores. That said, once it hits enough hand it and software running in it will be made to utilize the new hardware.

[Q] Why do Android Wear watches has duch powerful SoC?

Hi,
I'm pretty curious why all the current Android Wear devices seem to have such powerful hardware built in.
As far as I can tell, almost all the processing is done on the phone, so the SoC should not need to be so fast and power hungry.
Any ideas on why this is?
My Pebble has about 80Mhz single-core Processor (if I read that correctly) and can do many of the things the Android Wear devices can. Of course this is Apples and Oranges, but I think that even with Touchscreen and everything the processing power is unneccesarily overpowered...
Thanks.

Well, Moto 360 has a less powerful CPU. I think the reason is because these companies don't have the ability to design their own custom chips, other than maybe Samsung (who maybe just hasn't had time yet), so they need to use off the shelf chips that already have the drivers and kernels to run Android.

Older processors (like what's in the moto 360) are larger and more power hungry. Newer SoCs like the Snapdragon 400 used in the G Watch and Gear Live have higher-clocked, more powerful cores, but are manufactured with a smaller 28nm process. Smaller means more performance-per-watt. They disable all of the cores except one, which decreases power draw even more. Underclocking the one remaining core then saves even more power, all the while still performing even better than the old chip.
I seriously think Motorola just had a truck load of those TI processors sitting in a warehouse somewhere and was trying to figure out a way to make some money off them. Here's hoping they get rid of them all before the next hardware revision.

CommanderROR said:
Hi,
I'm pretty curious why all the current Android Wear devices seem to have such powerful hardware built in.
As far as I can tell, almost all the processing is done on the phone, so the SoC should not need to be so fast and power hungry.
Any ideas on why this is?
My Pebble has about 80Mhz single-core Processor (if I read that correctly) and can do many of the things the Android Wear devices can. Of course this is Apples and Oranges, but I think that even with Touchscreen and everything the processing power is unneccesarily overpowered...
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Running lower freq on a powerful cpu is more efficient than running a higher freq on a less powerful cpu
Like what another member have posted, there are perhaps more access to the current stockpile of CPUs which is cheaper than redesigning a new CPU or ordering an out-of-stock CPU (which is costlier)
or we do need to consider the possibility that there is more room for app developers to play with, without having the CPU as a limiting factor.

gtg465x said:
Well, Moto 360 has a less powerful CPU. I think the reason is because these companies don't have the ability to design their own custom chips, other than maybe Samsung (who maybe just hasn't had time yet), so they need to use off the shelf chips that already have the drivers and kernels to run Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The processors in other watch are not customer chips, Motorola just decided to say we rather save $10 in building the Moto-360 than letting users have a watch that is more responsive and better on battery life.

johnus said:
Older processors (like what's in the moto 360) are larger and more power hungry. Newer SoCs like the Snapdragon 400 used in the G Watch and Gear Live have higher-clocked, more powerful cores, but are manufactured with a smaller 28nm process. Smaller means more performance-per-watt. They disable all of the cores except one, which decreases power draw even more. Underclocking the one remaining core then saves even more power, all the while still performing even better than the old chip.
I seriously think Motorola just had a truck load of those TI processors sitting in a warehouse somewhere and was trying to figure out a way to make some money off them. Here's hoping they get rid of them all before the next hardware revision.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the best reply thus far. The only other thing I would add on is that using the older processor has already been proven to lower battery life on a SmartWatch. This article is a great example: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beautiful-outside-ugly-inside/2/
You'll see there that the Moto 360 has similar overall performance, and lower battery life in the standardized tests he was able to create. This also takes into account his "screen-off" tests with battery life, leading the reviewer to believe the SoC was the culprit.
Thanks.

Question (silly question) Can I use an older Android device's processor to add more processing power to the CPU?

I know the question contains a little of ignorance, but idk much about windows kernels and how works the OS en general, but, it is posible that a android phone with, idk, for example a snapdragon processor with an arch of ARM been used as more CPU processing power to the computer? Im just proposing it theoretically
And also by the way if someone could explain me what are the cores of the CPU and if it has anything related to the question thanks you

No. It will not work. Cores of the CPU are like brains in Humans, more cores = more processing power. Android uses the Linux kernel and Windows...the Windows kernel. Two differant beast. It would be like Cats and Dogs agreeing on the best place to go poo....it won't happen.

A CPU, or Central Processing Unit, is the part of the computer that does the actual work - performing operations. Modern CPUs have multiple cores, where each core is able to work on a different part of the operation. In a mobile context, multiple cores are also used to provide a balance between performance and power saving; depending on the CPU, there are generally 2 or more "little" cores that prioritize efficiency over performance; 2 or more "mid" cores that provide more processing power when the "little" cores aren't up to the task; and 1 or 2 "big" cores that provide the best performance but use the most power. When someone talks about "throttling" in a kernel, they're talking about the runtime mechanism that decides what cores a CPU will use under given load conditions.
There are multiple different CPU architectures, and as far as I know, it's not possible to parallel them - you can't use an ARM64 CPU in parallel with an Intel x64, even though they're both 64 bit. The reason for this is different architectures use different basic instructions and scheduling, so the amount of code that would need to go into a kernel to make different types work together would slow the system down and make the whole endeavor pointless, unless you're working with a really large scale operation.
If you look at multi-CPU systems, you'll see that everything from Xeon servers to supercomputers all use the same types of CPU to simplify interconnects, as well as the ability to use one kernel.
It's worth mentioning that there are some projects that do make use of different platforms - for example, SETI @ Home uses a network of Internet connected computers to create a sort of supercomputer. Botnets do the same sort of thing. The difference here is that these systems aren't paralleled, and they work at the application level, so they can only use a certain amount of the client system's resources.

V0latyle said:
A CPU, or Central Processing Unit, is the part of the computer that does the actual work - performing operations. Modern CPUs have multiple cores, where each core is able to work on a different part of the operation. In a mobile context, multiple cores are also used to provide a balance between performance and power saving; depending on the CPU, there are generally 2 or more "little" cores that prioritize efficiency over performance; 2 or more "mid" cores that provide more processing power when the "little" cores aren't up to the task; and 1 or 2 "big" cores that provide the best performance but use the most power. When someone talks about "throttling" in a kernel, they're talking about the runtime mechanism that decides what cores a CPU will use under given load conditions.
There are multiple different CPU architectures, and as far as I know, it's not possible to parallel them - you can't use an ARM64 CPU in parallel with an Intel x64, even though they're both 64 bit. The reason for this is different architectures use different basic instructions and scheduling, so the amount of code that would need to go into a kernel to make different types work together would slow the system down and make the whole endeavor pointless, unless you're working with a really large scale operation.
If you look at multi-CPU systems, you'll see that everything from Xeon servers to supercomputers all use the same types of CPU to simplify interconnects, as well as the ability to use one kernel.
It's worth mentioning that there are some projects that do make use of different platforms - for example, SETI @ Home uses a network of Internet connected computers to create a sort of supercomputer. Botnets do the same sort of thing. The difference here is that these systems aren't paralleled, and they work at the application level, so they can only use a certain amount of the client system's resources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whoa ok! Cool thanks for your explanation and time. I understood most of the reply so thanks for answering me question!
Have a good day

7zLT said:
Whoa ok! Cool thanks for your explanation and time. I understood most of the reply so thanks for answering me question!
Have a good day
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem. Here is a Wiki article that may provide a more concise explanation. Turns out I was wrong about instruction sets, at least concerning AMD APUs.
The bottom line is...Yes, it's absolutely possible to use multiple different systems to provide more processing power than just one. But, unless those systems are specifically designed to work in parallel with other systems, it would be a bit more complicated to get everything to work together, and the end result wouldn't necessarily be faster. If you're enterprising enough, you could set up an application on your computer as well as your phone that uses your phone's CPU to perform operations, but it wouldn't be easy.

Oh!
Ok, thanks for the references

The Northbridge chipset has limited bandwidth and is optimized to work with specific cpu's. Integrating at this level be ineffective at best even if you could get it to work because of the Northbridge bandwidth limitations.
A dual processor board is the one that you wanted, originally used mostly for servers they are also used in high end workstations. Most games are designed to run on 4 cores so it may not yield much. Some 3D rendering softwares and such are designed to take advantage of dual processor mobos. Again designed to work with a specific processor family like the Xeon series ie matched processors.