Related
In real phone scenario what we could benefit more? Will a quad-core be faster the 2gb of ram? Or will a 2gb will perform better against quad-core?
Pocketnow did a video between the gs2 and gs3 and both were opening apps really quick, they were really close on browsing, gaming. Do you think the 2gb will make a difference on the phone compare to the international? What are your thoughts?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
2GB will help with multitasking while the faster processor will help with gaming and to a degree, faster apps.
If it were an iPhone, then the quad core would be much better because apps will actually make use of the amazing gpu. In android, I doubt there will be an app released in the next year or two that realistically benefits from the quad core's gpu vs the dual core's.
Both the dual and quad core will have all of the software optimizations Samsung has done for web browsing. The 2gb memory is probably overkill at this point, but in theory it means that apps will never close in the background since there will be no need to free up new memory.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
lepapirriky said:
In real phone scenario what we could benefit more? Will a quad-core be faster the 2gb of ram? Or will a 2gb will perform better against quad-core?
Pocketnow did a video between the gs2 and gs3 and both were opening apps really quick, they were really close on browsing, gaming. Do you think the 2gb will make a difference on the phone compare to the international? What are your thoughts?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's my thoughts:
1. Still on the Epic 4G I've never had any real lag.
2. Lack of ram can stall a device, but an excess of ram will not make it faster.
3. Mobile quad-cores are new and untested.
4. Android is not designed for quad-core processors.
5. The dual-core US version should easily match the quad-core international.
6. More ram means more easily multitasking/app-switching.
Check out this article.
muyoso said:
If it were an iPhone, then the quad core would be much better because apps will actually make use of the amazing gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
RandomKing said:
Here's my thoughts:
1. Still on the Epic 4G I've never had any real lag.
2. Lack of ram can stall a device, but an excess of ram will not make it faster.
3. Mobile quad-cores are new and untested.
4. Android is not designed for quad-core processors.
5. The dual-core US version should easily match the quad-core international.
6. More ram means more easily multitasking/app-switching.
Check out this article.
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Well the whole android cant handle 4 cores i think is false because its derived from Linux and i know those who use 4,6,8 core processor's and use Linux. so if android isn't im sure its all in code is all.
2. More Ram does mean things will run much faster. For Example: playing gta 4 with 4GB of DDR3 Ram @ 1333MHz plays decent but my pc setup that plays gta 4 with 8Gb of DDR2 Ram @ 1333MHz plays faster and loads faster but GPU does factor those speeds too so, in a sense you cant bottleneck them.
Extra RAM. It's going to be a while before the apps/software catches up with having two more cores. Meanwhile even old stuff can benefit from extra memory. Also see it as more future proof as you won't get the lame ass excuses from Samsung about it not having enough RAM to run whatever the latest release of Android is like we got with ICS and the Epic 4G.
XxLostSoulxX said:
1. Well the whole android cant handle 4 cores i think is false because its derived from Linux and i know those who use 4,6,8 core processor's and use Linux. so if android isn't im sure its all in code is all.
2. More Ram does mean things will run much faster. For Example: playing gta 4 with 4GB of DDR3 Ram @ 1333MHz plays decent but my pc setup that plays gta 4 with 8Gb of DDR2 Ram @ 1333MHz plays faster and loads faster but GPU does factor those speeds too so, in a sense you cant bottleneck them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You've misunderstood. Android can use 4 cores, of course. What it can't do is use them effectively in a way that creates any sort of advantage. But just as a mention, being derived from Linux source does not make it a full-fledged Linux OS by far.
And on your second point, again, you're comparing to a full PC operating system. Up until now, apps have been designed for phones with far less than 1GB of ram. It really depends on how you use your phone as to how much ram is needed. If you have a video editor running in the background, while playing pandora, and emulating Mario 64 you'll need more than simply browsing the web. But the processor, bus speeds, operating system, etc. all factor into how effectively more ram can be used. For Example: A 32 bit computer can't even use more than 4GB of ram. More ram does not simply mean 'much' more more speed, there are many other limiting factors. You can throw all the ram you want at a netbook, it will never run GTA4.
Off-Topic Edit: I vote 2GB ram over Quad-Core.
I guess then the only thing that will "improve", not that the int'l lacks of, is on the multitasking??
The few videos I saw, they were really fast but that's of course without all the apps that a normal user install. Like I have 38 apps install on my phone and most of the time I open between 9 to 13 apps everyday. Most of the time I have to close it...I guess more for the habit of doing it and of courses need it when playing games.
I read the answer and I kinda feel its true, maybe android is not yet ready for such hardware just yet, does it feels the hardware manufacture is going too fast compare to the software?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
lepapirriky said:
I guess then the only thing that will "improve", not that the int'l lacks of, is on the multitasking??
The few videos I saw, they were really fast but that's of course without all the apps that a normal user install. Like I have 38 apps install on my phone and most of the time I open between 9 to 13 apps everyday. Most of the time I have to close it...I guess more for the habit of doing it and of courses need it when playing games.
I read the answer and I kinda feel its true, maybe android is not yet ready for such hardware just yet, does it feels the hardware manufacture is going too fast compare to the software?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There will be improvement between the dual-core, faster processor, and more ram, rest assured!
Although I still recommend closing apps unnecessarily opened to save battery.
2 A15s > 4 A9s.
Also, the A15 use less power. I'd take the 2 GBs of RAM with the newest CPU anyday.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
theking_13 said:
2 A15s > 4 A9s. Also, the A15 use less power. I'd take the 2 GBs of RAM with the newest CPU anyday.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+9000
RandomKing said:
Here's my thoughts:
1. Still on the Epic 4G I've never had any real lag.
2. Lack of ram can stall a device, but an excess of ram will not make it faster.
3. Mobile quad-cores are new and untested.
4. Android is not designed for quad-core processors.
5. The dual-core US version should easily match the quad-core international.
6. More ram means more easily multitasking/app-switching.
Check out this article.
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't have any lag on our epic 4g's? What ROM are you running? I've tried every rom out there and am friends with several other rooted epic owners, none of our phones are remotely comparable to the modern phones like s2 and above.
I'd love to see a video of you opening and running netflix, facebook, web browsing on chrome and stock, or whatever if you have time because this blows my mind. i'm doing something horribly wrong.
Too bad we don't have a samsung developed a15
I don't know why but I don't like qualcomm chips
Also whenever I hear snapdragon I automatically think worse than hummingbird
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
I would take the dual core Krait hands down because it is designed from cortex a15. More instruction per clock is better than stacking cores which a phone doesn't even use. I think the 2 gb of ram has more performance advantage.
They also increased the memory bandwidth with new SOC by adding a new dual channel memory controller which the exynos had all along... They fixed alot of the shortcoming of snapdragon processor with the this gen product
gtuansdiamm said:
[...]Also whenever I hear snapdragon I automatically think worse than hummingbird[...]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's because Hummingbirds rape Snapdragons. See the following:
Either way if you want LTE at the moment you are stuck with dual core. So the 2GB of RAM is a nice enhancement. The EVO 1x ended up as two models the 1X which is quad core with no LTE and the 1XL which is dual core with LTE.
Sent from my PantechP4100 using xda premium
RandomKing said:
Amazing gpu? The Galaxy S I opposed the iPhone 4. The Epic 4G has a better gpu than the iPhone 4, the PowerVR SGX 540 vs the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535. Just thought I'd mention it since you're in an Epic 4G forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where the hell did the epic4g or the iPhone 4 come into the question? My point was that iPhones actually make use of their gpu's better than android phones do, so the difference between the quad core and the dual core gs3 should be minimal in that regard, at least for a while.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA
noobnl said:
I would take the dual core Krait hands down because it is designed from cortex a15.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is wrong.
The Krait is very much designed from the Cortex A9. While it shares similarities with the A15, it is not quite as powerful.
Krait is about 60% of the way between the A9 and A15.
jnadke said:
This is wrong.
The Krait is very much designed from the Cortex A9. While it shares similarities with the A15, it is not quite as powerful.
Krait is about 60% of the way between the A9 and A15.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, where'd you even get that from? Krait is slightly below an A15, Qualcomm derived their design from it. Yes, its not a true A15 core. But its the best right now in production.
Qualcomm has a license to mess around with ARMs designs and make their own CPUs, not just copy and slap an "A4" on them like Apple does.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
theking_13 said:
No, where'd you even get that from? Krait is slightly below an A15, Qualcomm derived their design from it. Yes, its not a true A15 core. But its the best right now in production.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting how someone "Likes" wrong information.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4940/qualcomm-new-snapdragon-s4-msm8960-krait-architecture
Designing a processor takes an extremely long amount of time. A15 was just barely released a few months ago. No way Krait was designed from it.
Now, Krait borrows some features from A15, but it's missing some important features as well. Krait does feature an extended instruction pipeline over the A9 (11 vs 9 cycles), but it's nowhere near as long as the A15 (15 cycles). Strictly speaking, lengthening a pipeline is less work than shortening it, hence Krait was not designed from the A15.
It's more likely Krait is an evolution of the Scorpion than anything.
As far as Apple, they have no place in this conversation, but if you must.... while they do have a "processor-only" license with ARM, they do farm out to a company to change some transistor signaling to make it more power efficient (they later bought them).
2 years ago, Apple bought Freescale, the only remaining PowerPC processor design company. (aside: The defense industry was largely concerned, as they rely on PowerPC for their power-efficient but high-speed applications). Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if they have an architecture license now so they can design their own ARM processors, Qualcomm-style. The main advantage would be integrating LTE radios like Qualcomm does.
Coincidentally it takes about 2 years to fully design a processor.
Hey everyone.
I'm a bit lost and I don't know what to choose to buy: I9500 or I9505.
So far I know that Adreno 320 is fully OpenGL 3.0 compatible, while PowerVR SGX544MP3 not.
Adreno 320 is scoring 4 FPS more than PowerVR in T-Rex GLBenchmark 2.7.0.
PowerVR is scoring 1-2 more FPS in GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt
Both GPU is scoring the same in Antutu and Quadrant video test, with PowerVR slightly better for few seconds (Adreno is dropping 1-2 seconds of the test to 30 FPS while PowerVR stay constant at 50-60)
In Antutu, the 3rd test (with the DNA code), Adreno 320 stays at 30-40 fps while PowerVR scores constant 60.
Both, 3dmark and glbenchmark show the PowerVR in the S4 even weaker than Nexus 4 and other chinese mobiles.
What's the deal....what the hell it's happening ? Is PowerVR that weak in the new graphic technologies but scores well in the new ones ?
Also, is there any OpenGL 3.0 benchmark so we can compare the Adreno 320 (fully OpenGL 3.0) with the PowerVR 544MP3 (OpenGL 2.0 but with some OpenGL 3.0 features thanks to an API), to see what the score and quality is ? I really want to see what that 3.0 API knows to do, as the Imagination doesn't really says what that API really do. Would there be games or apps using only OpenGL 3.0 and we will have trouble to run them because of this old GPU ?
I'm wondering...if in one year will be released an OpenGL 3.0 game, what will happens with S4 Octa ? It will not be able to play it, right ? I have no idea how that OpenGL thing works, but I remember that a game requesting DirectX 10 will not work with DirectX 9.
PowerVR really sucks. Samsung dumbs should put the PowerVR 6 "Rogue".
My opinion is that the Qualcomm scores very well, even my S3 is enough to play every single game, but the phone lags on RAM and that's why I replace it now. Buying the Octa will costs me $150 more than the Qualcomm version and I will need to send it oversea in case I will have problems and need to send it to warranty. With those $150 I can buy 2 spare battery and the Samsung S band instead getting the Octa. I want the Octa, but this phone really deserve such attention with that old rubish PowerVR GPU chip ? I don't have 4G in my area, so I don't care about the 4G, but will be nice in case I will travel somewhere with 4G, even if for me HSPA+ is enough and very fast, so the only thing counts here is the CPU, GPU and the battery life. Battery life can be solved with an additional battery, so remains the GPU and the CPU....So far A15 cores are yet very fast, but can use a lot of energy. So I can have 2 days battery life with texting and calling, but 2 hours playing games and watching 1080p videos, while with A9 I will have something similar to S3
Any developer or experienced guy here can answer me to this questions ?
Nobody ?
I'm the same situation. I'm still deciding on what version i should buy...
We need an user with Galaxy S 4 Exynos and one with Snapdragon. They should do same tests (like linpack, vellamo, antutu, and much more) and give us results.
For OpenGL 3.0 i think is better to have native support, not via APIs. Also in Snapdragon we can have same Exynos Performance via OCs and much more. I find Snapdragon more optimizable than exynos, but PowerVR is still a good GPU.
Alberto96 said:
I'm the same situation. I'm still deciding on what version i should buy...
We need an user with Galaxy S 4 Exynos and one with Snapdragon. They should do same tests (like linpack, vellamo, antutu, and much more) and give us results.
For OpenGL 3.0 i think is better to have native support, not via APIs. Also in Snapdragon we can have same Exynos Performance via OCs and much more. I find Snapdragon more optimizable than exynos, but PowerVR is still a good GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agree with you. I don't get it why people says the powervr is better. I see that in antutu benchmark scores better than adreno, but in GLBenchmark is awful. This is my only worry right now: what happens if we put the two gpu to do a full OpenGL ES 3.0 test? It will throw an error or will pass it, but with lower score. I don't care the score so much, but its capability to pass the test. If it pass it, I'm sold to Octa.
Also I found that Octa supports LPPDDR3 at 800Mhz, which means 12.8GB/s bandwidth, while S600 is LPPDDR3 but only at 600Mhz or so (only 9.4GB/s or something like that)
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
I just read (italian forum) that Exynos in the future can use all of the 8 cores together with kernel 3.8 .
So.......i think i will buy the exynos I'm just waiting a friend reply that bought it on Expansys USA. If he receive it and is all good, i will buy it from that site. With Italian Taxes (21%) and shipping costs it will cost about 730-740€
Alberto96 said:
I just read (italian forum) that Exynos in the future can use all of the 8 cores together with kernel 3.8 .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would you need these eight cores working together? How will you be sure Android will dispatch your applications threads in a proper way among them? Just another headache. I also don't believe they will really help to save battery, it's a pure marketing. But A15 is a bit more powerful than Krait from S600.
I think PowerVR 544MP3 scores below Adreno 320 in T-Rex because of unified architecture implemented in Adreno. This test uses complex shaders on every surface, so, probably, Octa GPU runs out of its fragment processors.
If you don't need a new phone right now, wait for S800 models. I don't think Mali T65x is good enough either. Looking at S3 GPU - yes, it's pretty fast in some wonderful tasks as rendering to texture, but it has some weird bottlenecks making Horn and T-REX much slower in fps than I've expected looking at pure gflops values.
Phobos Exp-Nord said:
Why would you need these eight cores working together? How will you be sure Android will dispatch your applications threads in a proper way among them? Just another headache. I also don't believe they will really help to save battery, it's a pure marketing. But A15 is a bit more powerful than Krait from S600.
I think PowerVR 544MP3 scores below Adreno 320 in T-Rex because of unified architecture implemented in Adreno. This test uses complex shaders on every surface, so, probably, Octa GPU runs out of its fragment processors.
If you don't need a new phone right now, wait for S800 models. I don't think Mali T65x is good enough either. Looking at S3 GPU - yes, it's pretty fast in some wonderful tasks as rendering to texture, but it has some weird bottlenecks making Horn and T-REX much slower in fps than I've expected looking at pure gflops values.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, when you play some heavy games you need all cores. Also is useful to use all cores when you are charging phone, without killing battery.
I need a new phone, because my Galaxy S I9000 is slow with new apps and android versions. If i buy this is useless a S800 version. CPU is fast, gpu maybe not as Adreno 330, but with overclock we can boost a lot performances.
Dude, using all eight cores will simply melt your phone in your hands LOL. You will drink S4 cocktail LOL. Quad-core is enough, but a gpu it's never. Same things are happening with the PCs. I don't need huge fps in trex, but some safe reviews and opinions from people really knows this things....but so far only you two were able to answer (I will not pretend yet that this forum is full of noobs LOL).
I want new mobile because of the lack of ram in S3, even if it's smooth for me. I was happy to hear about the Octa version, because I wanted to try something new, but I'm kinda lost now.
Alberto96, please let me know when your friend gets that i9500. I want to get it from Expansys too (I think we already talked together about this in other threads). If I will buy i9505 I will get it from Amazon Italy as it cheaper than other places
I'm just comparing:
I9500: - 1 years of warranty (overseas)
I9505 - 2 years of warranty (locally)
I9500 = I9505 + 3 additional S4 batteries with external charger
That because:
740€ = 625€ + 35€ x 3 batteries (and I will still have money for a Burger King and a Cola)
So...it's really deserve the risk ? Still nobody answered me related to OpenGL ES 3.0
S800 and Adreno 330 will not be in a Samsung device soon (maybe never) and 2.1-2.3GHz looks too much for a mobile phone. We already have warming issues with the S4 (I even have issues in S3, with the phone going warmer). Also....My laptop is a Dual-Core AMD 2.1 GHz for God sake.
@Alberto96, I beg you, when your friend gets the phone, please test it and let me know what you think ?
demlasjr said:
2.1-2.3GHz looks too much for a mobile phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not when playing Hi10P in software.
I do not know the exact internal scheme of Exynos Octa, so it's easy for me to imagine the situation when two threads of single application will be dispatched to two different core domains, making it really hard to exchange the data between them, as probably each domain has its own cache subsystem, so the performance will drop even higher than with two threads on A7-domain together.
Phobos Exp-Nord said:
Not when playing Hi10P in software.
I do not know the exact internal scheme of Exynos Octa, so it's easy for me to imagine the situation when two threads of single application will be dispatched to two different core domains, making it really hard to exchange the data between them, as probably each domain has its own cache subsystem, so the performance will drop even higher than with two threads on A7-domain together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, you're right here. I don't have much knowledge relating this profile as I'm not watching anime, but seems to depending more on the GPU than CPU in S4 case. I'm really sure that Exynos Octa is able to run it, but not sure about the PowerVR. I've read that an Hi10P plays anywhere from 15-20fps (watchable, but still not that great) with a Tegra 3 quad-core overclocked at 1.6GHz, so there is still hope.
demlasjr said:
I've read that an Hi10P plays anywhere from 15-20fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's about 720p. Just asked in another thread there about 1080p - S4 cannot play it smooth enough with MX Player. It's not a question of resolution, it's a problem of use a file from 1080p home collection without any additional efforts.
We'll see, maybe later there will be an update released for such issues. I think the GPU and the CPU of both variants are capable of playing such videos.
Hey guys,
http://withimagination.imgtec.com/i...or-todays-leading-platforms#comment-880303396
jumping directly from OpenGL ES 2.0 to 3.0 would create a situation where app compatibility would be severely broken across devices. But most people update their devices every two years; by that time, PowerVR Series6 would be the dominant OpenGL ES 3.0 GPU generation shipping in most devices.
It is also important to remember that the PowerVR Series5XT GPU family has been successfully holding its own against recently released competing graphics solutions despite being released almost four years ago, which in itself is an amazing feat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So....we should trust alexvoica and go forward with PowerVR SGX544MP3 even if lacks of OpenGL ES 2.0 ? He said that there was long way til OpenGL ES 2.0, but it wasn't such a big way as he said. Now every single game use OpenGL ES 2.0, I'm sure soon will be OpenGL ES 3.0 games only and not after 2 years.
get a look at this http://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?cols=2&D1=Samsung+GT-I9500+Galaxy+S4&D2=Samsung+GT-I9505+Galaxy+S4
Why GT-I9505 is faster than GT-I9500 if it's a quad core? Apparently I'm lucky enough that GT-I9505 is even cheaper than GT-I9500 in the Motherland marketplace.
Also, is there anything that I need to check before purchasing? I can open the box, check what's on it, etc etc before buying it. Is there any fault I should check? Like S2 has few faulty models with bad chipset and you can check that easily before purchasing.
afaik the 9505 model has a Qualcomm 600 or 800, both in my opinion are better than Samsung's octa core. And besides only 4 cores are running at a time on the octa core.
It's more like two quad cores than eight concurrent cores. The one in the i9505 is faster.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda app-developers app
You guys are forgetting 3 things
1.the octa core s4 has a cortex a-15 quad core as the bigger core which is way faster than the Qualcomm one as the Qualcomm one is a9
2.there might be lags in overall animations but benchmark wise the octa core beats the quad core to the ground
3.if u guys really wanna see which ones better.wait for a stable AOSP ROM for i9500 and then compare
Wait n see how smooth n fast the i9500 actually is without Samsung's crapware
varund7726 said:
You guys are forgetting 3 things
1.the octa core s4 has a cortex a-15 quad core as the bigger core which is way faster than the Qualcomm one as the Qualcomm one is a9
2.there might be lags in overall animations but benchmark wise the octa core beats the quad core to the ground
3.if u guys really wanna see which ones better.wait for a stable AOSP ROM for i9500 and then compare
Wait n see how smooth n fast the i9500 actually is without Samsung's crapware
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I9500 is one of Samsung biggest failure, they rushed to launch it with their "octa" core, and they released an unfinished product with flaws.
I9505 it is faster after newer updates, and btw i9505 has OpenGL ES 3.0, i9500 doesn't.
So games will run smoother and with better graphics on Android 4.3+ on the i9505.
They're both great devices, but Samsung really fwcked up with i9500
varund7726 said:
You guys are forgetting 3 things
1.the octa core s4 has a cortex a-15 quad core as the bigger core which is way faster than the Qualcomm one as the Qualcomm one is a9
2.there might be lags in overall animations but benchmark wise the octa core beats the quad core to the ground
3.if u guys really wanna see which ones better.wait for a stable AOSP ROM for i9500 and then compare
Wait n see how smooth n fast the i9500 actually is without Samsung's crapware
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. yes, octa core has A15 Quad Core, as the big core. but the qualcomm one has Krait cores, based on A15, not A9 .
2. i do not know this, benchmark doesn't reflect real life usage.
3. hope so
varund7726 said:
You guys are forgetting 3 things
1.the octa core s4 has a cortex a-15 quad core as the bigger core which is way faster than the Qualcomm one as the Qualcomm one is a9
2.there might be lags in overall animations but benchmark wise the octa core beats the quad core to the ground
3.if u guys really wanna see which ones better.wait for a stable AOSP ROM for i9500 and then compare
Wait n see how smooth n fast the i9500 actually is without Samsung's crapware
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I lost my trust in Samsung Exynos processor due to the Mali issues in I9300 which make the development of I9300 way slower than the USA's S3. It took CM team so long to get a stable build out of it.
Anyway the good thing about the I9505 over the I9500 and for me even the Note 3 is having a Google Edition. At least porting new Android versions from I9505G to I9505 is easier and faster access to updates.
Dean-xXx said:
I9500 is one of Samsung biggest failure, they rushed to launch it with their "octa" core, and they released an unfinished product with flaws.
I9505 it is faster after newer updates, and btw i9505 has OpenGL ES 3.0, i9500 doesn't.
So games will run smoother and with better graphics on Android 4.3+ on the i9505.
They're both great devices, but Samsung really fwcked up with i9500
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude ...adreno 320 GPU doesn't support all features of open gl es3.0
It just does it for namesake
And that GPU is way too old
Whereas powervr 544 is the same one used in phone 5 I guess which is like a 100 times faster than adreno
varund7726 said:
Dude ...adreno 320 the doesn't support all features of open gl es3.0
It just does it for namesake
And that GPU is way too old
Whereas powervr 544 is the same one used in phone 5 I guess which is like a 100 times faster than adreno
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhm the Adreno 320 is actually as powerful as the powerVR SGX544 MP3 even if its running at a slightly lower clock speed... Ive hit 21 fps in gfxbench T-Rex and 52 in egypt Offscreen so its definitely not weak... Its also much more power efficient... I can play asphalt 8 using the performance governor for a good 3 hours straight easily...
Dean-xXx said:
I9500 is one of Samsung biggest failure, they rushed to launch it with their "octa" core, and they released an unfinished product with flaws.
I9505 it is faster after newer updates, and btw i9505 has OpenGL ES 3.0, i9500 doesn't.
So games will run smoother and with better graphics on Android 4.3+ on the i9505.
They're both great devices, but Samsung really fwcked up with i9500
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Qualcomm's processors sucks monkey balls. Its the GPU that is pretty that too only at supporting new APIs.
Imagination have pushed an API Extension which will enable OpenGL ES 3.0 key features.
http://www.imgtec.com/News/Release/index.asp?NewsID=717
varund7726 said:
Dude ...adreno 320 GPU doesn't support all features of open gl es3.0
It just does it for namesake
And that GPU is way too old
Whereas powervr 544 is the same one used in phone 5 I guess which is like a 100 times faster than adreno
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The GPU in the iPhone 5 is the PowerVR SGX 543MP3 not 544
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda app-developers app
Hazerm said:
The GPU in the iPhone 5 is the PowerVR SGX 543MP3 not 544
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ya the 544 is a version higher
but still
have u seen the gaming performance on it??!wayy better than the adreno...
varund7726 said:
ya the 544 is a version higher
but still
have u seen the gaming performance on it??!wayy better than the adreno...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you're talking about the gaming performance on the iPhone 5 compared to the adreno, forget it. IOS has more optimised gaming apps and I'm not too sure if you can get 60fps on the octa core S4 in asphalt 8 either. Hmmmm...
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda app-developers app
Simple question, I purchased a Moto G GPE and its on its way but i have the curiosity about how the SOC Snapdragon 400 Cuad Core compares to something like the S4 Pro that was in the Nexus 4 which ran great. I know its a newer chip but i havent found any real evidence whether the architecture is superior or inferior to the S4 Pro since it was a flagship chip but the 400 is budget. Anyone has any insight on this? Thanks.
best way to compare the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(system_on_chip)
mike21pr said:
Simple question, I purchased a Moto G GPE and its on its way but i have the curiosity about how the SOC Snapdragon 400 Cuad Core compares to something like the S4 Pro that was in the Nexus 4 which ran great. I know its a newer chip but i havent found any real evidence whether the architecture is superior or inferior to the S4 Pro since it was a flagship chip but the 400 is budget. Anyone has any insight on this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Snapdragon 400 is positioned more like S4 Plus, not Pro. As in marketing positioning.
Speaking in technical terms however, those two SoCs have a completely differnet architecture. S4 Plus always has Krait cores, while our S400 has Cortex-A7 cores, which is generally somewhat slower than Krait, partially because Krait is an Out-of-Order architecture, while Cortex-A7 is In-Order.
In terms of cores S4 Plus always had two cores (up to 1,5 GHz), while our S400 has four cores @ 1,2 GHz.
Now go figure what´s faster. I´d personally prefer two Kraits
Note: Qualcom had really messed up the naming in S400 series as the chips can contain either two Krait cores or four Cortex-A7 cores. Don´t get me wrong, Cortex-A7 is a great architecture , mostly because its performance/power consumption ratio, but the SoCs containg those cores should have been labeled as Snapdragon 350 or something like that.
Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600KThe latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900KAs mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.
kunalneo said:
Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600KThe latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900KAs mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think for the money the i9 10850k is a better option than the 10900 as long as you're not concerned about pci gen 4
I am looking for user of a Core-i7 990x 5-6Ghz 24GB fastest RAM.
GTX470+GTX980ACX2.0 Overcloked
OCZ 240GByte PCI 3.0 SSD 2000MByte/s
Check AMD for my 2 other servers JimDijkstra86NL aKa Jimmy ;-D
I know shes old but she was gold I7-2600k. Still using mine OC'd from day1 with a H70. daily 4.5Ghz 24/7 bought right after Ivy Bridge release for price reasons. Updated my graphic to 1060 6g and running it in only 2 lanes with Sandy and have yet to have issues in games. Well depending on what i set Horizon 5 to it will be crushed. H5 is very demanding GPU wise.
The best menu for CPU means fastest chip, which speed up your device. Now a days there are many best intel processors for gaming.
For intel series I would recommend 12th Gen 12400 for gaming under Budget
Really would like to have 1 that OC'd like Sandy u didn't hardly need to do much of anything to hit 4.5,4.6. Slap good ram in and a good water cooler and rock and roll time
Why are there no i7s on this list? A xx700 has plenty of power. I would argue an i9 is way overkill for most gamers.
"Best" is also a subjective term. Ideally, you want a combination of CPU, motherboard, RAM, and GPU where each compliments the other. If you're running a 3080 Ti on an i5, you're probably not going to get the maximum performance out of the GPU. This is called "bottlenecking".
ALL Intel CPUs were very good performers once starting with the first i5/i7. I still see people pushing hex-core Westmere-EP Xeons like X5672 to 4 GHz with surprising results for an 11-year-old CPU!
The best processor for gaming would be Intel Core i5 12600K.
The Core i5 12600K is the standout processor for gamers because it not only offers great gaming performance across the board, but it does so at a price point that isn't going to reduce you to tears. It not only beats the similarly priced 5600X in pretty much every game, but it outperforms the $750 Ryzen 9 5950X in plenty of tests too. That it soundly beats the Core i9 11900K is just the icing on the cake. Not bad for a $320 mid-range chip.