Related
According to Microsoft QSD8250 is the chipset. Now how bad is it? I see people are saying it'd be better than HD2 since it'll have the perfect drivers from MS, but still wonder how this compare with the phone I am planning to get, Captivate, or an iPhone 4.
What prompted MS to choose this over so many newer (and possibly better) options?
rexian said:
What prompted MS to choose this over so many newer (and possibly better) options?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess: WP7 has been in development for quite some time, so at the start of development they choose the top processor that was available. But I think that this forum focuses to much on the processor and specifications, because in the end, the whole package must be convincing and that includes the operating system that has been optimized for this processor.
Furthermore, the current specifications will be the lowest common denominator for quiet some time (perhaps until WP8) and all apps will be optimized to run satisfactory on this specification (AFAIK the 20 second start-up rule for apps will be measured with the current specification). Newer processors may speed some things up, but the current hardware will be the target platform...
The development must have started before this chipset was launched, but you are right - this was most likely the target platform.
There are not many 3D games available though, the basic working will be fluid I know when I check at the store in few days. My worries are about the 3D games that will be launched later. If the experience with those is not as good as other platforms, MS will be in trouble. Better hardware will fix the issue in future but the reputation will be ruined and be stuck for a while.
Captivate is more powerful, mainly due to its GPU being about 4 times more powerful than the qsd8250s adreno200 gpu. Though, all WP7 devices will have better looking games since Captivate runs android... And everyone knows android games look crap, no matter how how powerful the hardware is (due to devs having to make their devices run on low end hardware to get more sales)
The IP4 is a better comparison because it's hardware and software have been fully engineered to run along each other, very much like WP7 devices. While it does have a more powerful GPU compared with the QSD, there wouldn't be much difference; the adreno 200 pushes about 22million triangles per sec, where as the sgx535 pushes about 28million triangles per sec. Whether developers even use all those polygons, I'm not sure I've seen.
Though epic citadel on iOS as well as this upcoming game called Aralon sure looks good.
Aralon link: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/10/oh-man-aralon-for-ios-is-gonna-be-good/
Thanks Cruzer. Now it makes sense. 22 mil vs 28 mil is not a big difference. Were they running at the same clock-speed? I hear A4 processor in iPhone 4 runs at ~800MHz, so may be they both perform in a similar manner.
Not sure how much the GPU is affected by the CPU. I think it's more to do about the speed of the actual GPU, but don't take me on that quote lol.
I have a Captivate and an iPhone 4. Im getting rid of both of them to get a HD7 or Focus. The iphone works flawlessly and isnt buggy in the slightest bit, the captivate is very choppy and i couldnt take it after a while with the lagging even after i upgraded to froyo. I would go with wp7 to be different and because it looks fun even if it uses an older processor. The hummingbird and A4 are both top of the line and its going to be hard to compete especially with each having a different os.
Writing this from my iphone 4
So I've been looking into getting a DVP when I came across the problem where no one really knows how much RAM it has.
Since the phone sees it as having 256mb while advertising says it has 512mb, I think the following will be a problem:
http://www.wpcentral.com/windows-phone-tango-limitations-officially-confirmed
Will DVP users be limited on the available apps? If so, this is a big turn off on me getting the phone.
-edit-
Did I jump the gun and miss the part where the NoDo update fixed it to properly read 512mb?
Someone please confirm
-edit-
Also, can anyone tell me if the Wifi issues are fixed with the latest updates?
Just wondering before I go for it.
Thanks!
The VP always had 512mb ram, it merely wasnt displayed properly in the launch version of WP7.
You must be confused on what tango as a whole is, it allows manus to push out lower spec phones while still being able to use wp7 on them.
Previously they required 512mb ram (among other things), you couldnt make a wp7 phone below the spec requirements.
There's currently no phones out based on the 'low-end' specs, and those would be the ones that cant run high mem apps. the lumia 610 isnt even out yet (unless i'm mistaken).
There's ultimately only 3 available WP7 chassis (that all manus base their design off of):
WP7 Launch: QSD8250 + 512mb ram (1st gen snapdragon)
Chassis update 1: MSM8255 + 512mb ram (2nd gen snapdragon)
Chassis update 2: APQ8055+MDM9200 + 512mb ram (2nd gen snapdragon) (current high end for WP7)
Upcoming tango chassis: MSM7227A + 256mb ram (low-end 1st gen snapdragon)
The new low-end tango devices will be based on hardware of compariable age to the WP7 launch chassis, but that wont affect any current and future owners that arnt using a low end device.
The low end chassis isnt really interesting except for those that want a really inexpensive WP7 device (it makes sense too, it sounds like a good way to increase marketshare). WP7 is two full generations behind, as 4th gen snapdragons are rolling out now.
Very least it'll be more energy effecient as the update2 chassis uses two chips, the first is the SoC/CPU and the 2nd is a seperate modem. 4th gen snapdragons have LTE built in and are 28nm, so they're going to be faster and more energy efficient (those two are multiplicative and not merely additive, a faster chip that uses less energy gets stuff done faster and uses less energy in that less time).
Though there doesnt seem to be a terribly large library of things that can push hardware on WP7. WP7 does have the smallest library currently because it's the smallest marketshare out of the 3 major OS's.
The first part of your response is what I was looking for I think.
I get the point of what Tango is, with allowing lower spec units and all. I was just worried about this one little detail:
"Windows Phone Marketplace app restrictions – Some processor-intensive apps have memory requirements, and will not work on phones with 256 MB of RAM."
Since I was reading everywhere that the DVP reports to the OS as having 2xxMB ram, it would have problem with apps down the road. The app would read that it has 2xxMB and deny download.
But from what I can understand from your response, if you have the latest updates on the phone (7.5 Mango?), you should not have a problem.
So it should show 4xxMB granted everything is up to date and everything will work fine and dandy?
All current WP7 devices have 512mb ram period, they dont show all of it because the gpu takes up a slice of the system ram.
This is true for any device that has a gpu but the gpu doesnt have it's own memory to work with.
MS takes this into account, only newer low end devices will not meet the ram requirements.
Well there I have it. lol
Thanks!
Now on the hunt for a DVP!
Hello, I am a bit confused. When the wifi version came out, users in this forum mentioned that there was no lag and the device was fast even running multiple apps. Now, I have read some postings saying that lag still exists. Could anybody please clarify? Is the LTE version faster and have longer battery usage?
hajime_android said:
Hello, I am a bit confused. When the wifi version came out, users in this forum mentioned that there was no lag and the device was fast even running multiple apps. Now, I have read some postings saying that lag still exists. Could anybody please clarify? Is the LTE version faster and have longer battery usage?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've read that the speed is negligible. Also I've read that the LTE version has a quick charge option & that it plays 4k video whereas the Wi Fi version doesn't & can't. I have the WI Fi version & I plan on keeping it mainly for update reasons (I don't like waiting for carrier approval). But I'm not certain about all this & would also like some clarity from those who may know a bit more about these differences.
loQ on said:
I've read that the speed is negligible. Also I've read that the LTE version has a quick charge option & that it plays 4k video whereas the Wi Fi version doesn't & can't. I have the WI Fi version & I plan on keeping it mainly for update reasons (I don't like waiting for carrier approval). But I'm not certain about all this & would also like some clarity from those who may know a bit more about these differences.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're right about updates. The LTE version from Verizon will never be updated unless Verizon pushes an update and you won't be able to flash newer ROMs because they lock their bootloaders. With wi-fi version at least you know it's hackable and you can flash updated ROMs all you want.
And charging speed isn't a big deal if you charge it overnight. Plus 4k is really rare anyways so no big deal there.
Sent from my SM-P900 using XDA Premium HD app
I have the wifi version and it is running smoothly. However, I was actually concern about the speed performance compare to the LTE version before I got the wifi. To be honest with you, I have no issue or complaints about the device. Everything running as it support to be. If you don't need the LTE like me, I tether it through my phone. Go with the wifi because as far as I have read it is only about charging speed and small differences. This is just my opinion and you will save money.
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk
Russbad said:
I think you're right about updates. The LTE version from Verizon will never be updated unless Verizon pushes an update and you won't be able to flash newer ROMs because they lock their bootloaders. With wi-fi version at least you know it's hackable and you can flash updated ROMs all you want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As the owner of a Verizon galaxy tab 10.1 who had to suffer through a 2 year contract I can attest to this. After purchasing it with honeycomb Verizon/samsung updated the tablet twice in the past 2.5 years. The ice cream sandwich update came about 5 months after ICS was out and at least a couple months after it was out on the wifi variant of the 10.1.
I just cancelled my service on that tablet in favor of tethering the wifi note pro as I am not going to pay this kind of money for a device with limited support. My 10.1 sits in a dock now at work in front of my keyboard serving as a glorified mp3 player and a testament to why I abhor carrier based devices.
Had it not been for the efforts of pershoot on the original galaxy tab 10.1 series it would have been even harder. Other than his incorporation of the Verizon variant into CM10 there were no custom ROMs for my tablet (there was probably one clean ROM but no ASAP type ROMs). I happily endured beta testing his builds for him and spent countless nights flashing his test builds.
I truly hope that some good developers pick up the LTE versions and build for them. Perhaps with the different cpu package they will, there was no such incentive on the original galaxy tab 10.1 series.
Oh and as for the question about battery life goes, I'm confident that the LTE variant will have less battery life all things being equal. It's just par for the course with LTE over wifi, as evidenced by any smartphone that enters a bad signal area compared to it being on wifi. Don't get me wrong, I loved the always on Internet access but this time around I just couldn't pull the trigger...
muzzy, I can see your disdain for verizon. I opted for LTE because of the snapdragon 800 chipset (has quick charge 2.0 just like the Note 3), this wasnt present on other lte tablets. Wifi, I usually like as well but the recharge time on my previous tablets had me looking for a newer solution.
Galaxy tab 2 10.1 wifi
Galaxy Note 10.1 wifi
Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 wifi
If I am buying, I will buy from a vendor rather than from a phone company. What are the advantageous and disadvantages of the LTE version over the wifi version?
hajime_android said:
If I am buying, I will buy from a vendor rather than from a phone company. What are the advantageous and disadvantages of the LTE version over the wifi version?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used the WiFi version for about 13 days, then returned it and plan on getting the LTE version.
I found the WiFi version to be mostly smooth (certainly smoother than the Note 10.1 2014 edition, that uses the same processor), however it does indeed have minor lag.
Here are the reasons why I want the LTE version ( because it uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor) over the WiFi
1. LTE version is faster and smoother without lag (unlike the WiFi version - every Exynos device I've used has had lag )
2. There's a wider range of compatible apps for the Snapdragon (some apps I use don't work that well with Exynos chipsets)
3. LTE version changes faster
Of course the LTE version is more expensive and may not get updates as quickly as the WiFi version.
I'm not planning on getting the Verizon version but rather the international unlocked version.
Verizon's track record on updates is simply brutal. Be prepared that you may see one update in a year and then they will most likely stop updating all together. Picked up a 7.7 last year. Got one update and that was it. Still stuck on ICS. All the custom rom's won't let the radio work even though they say they are for the i815 (Verizon model). I got 2. One for me and one for my wife and they are basically paperweights at this point. Never again. I'll tether my Wifi versions and not be tied to a contract for a device that rarely gets an update.
As for performance, My understanding was there is no significant performance difference between the Wifi and LTE. I know the Snapdragon will charge faster but since I let mine charge overnight, this is not a big deal for me.
Also kep in mind, you can root the WiFi version. My guess is the Verizon version may not be as simple to root and there probably won't be a ton of custom roms for it either though that is just a guess based on my previous expereince with Verizon tablets.
stondec100 said:
I used the WiFi version for about 13 days, then returned it and plan on getting the LTE version.
I found the WiFi version to be mostly smooth (certainly smoother than the Note 10.1 2014 edition, that uses the same processor), however it does indeed have minor lag.
Here are the reasons why I want the LTE version ( because it uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor) over the WiFi
1. LTE version is faster and smoother without lag (unlike the WiFi version - every Exynos device I've used has had lag )
2. There's a wider range of compatible apps for the Snapdragon (some apps I use don't work that well with Exynos chipsets)
3. LTE version changes faster
Of course the LTE version is more expensive and may not get updates as quickly as the WiFi version.
I'm not planning on getting the Verizon version but rather the international unlocked version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mike02z said:
Verizon's track record on updates is simply brutal. Be prepared that you may see one update in a year and then they will most likely stop updating all together. Picked up a 7.7 last year. Got one update and that was it. Still stuck on ICS. All the custom rom's won't let the radio work even though they say they are for the i815 (Verizon model). I got 2. One for me and one for my wife and they are basically paperweights at this point. Never again. I'll tether my Wifi versions and not be tied to a contract for a device that rarely gets an update.
As for performance, My understanding was there is no significant performance difference between the Wifi and LTE. I know the Snapdragon will charge faster but since I let mine charge overnight, this is not a big deal for me.
Also kep in mind, you can root the WiFi version. My guess is the Verizon version may not be as simple to root and there probably won't be a ton of custom roms for it either though that is just a guess based on my previous expereince with Verizon tablets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I saw your post and thought I'd chime in here with a little info. I'm surprised that you returned the wifi model. The LTE version will definitely not get as many updates as the wifi model will. This is a most assuredly fact. especially if you are going to get the Verizon model. Verizon's track record is unbelievably terrible when it comes to releasing updates for their tablets. Just doing a general search on Verizon & tablets will fill your whole screen with pages and pages of complaints about this issue.
As far as the unlocked version that you mentioned I cannot really say. It will depend on the carrier that you choose to get coverage with. Just keep in mind that it is an LTE version that you are getting and there are only so many carriers. Among those carriers they themselves will have to test and approve updates as they are released by Samsung before they are rolled out to the devices themselves. So basically, when Samsung releases an update, non LTE models will get the update first. The LTE models will be limited to the software being tested an approved by the LTE provider, along with many features being locked out or removed from the software itself.
As for your post #1 that states:
LTE version is faster and smoother without lag (unlike the WiFi version - every Exynos device I've used has had lag )
This is most definitely untrue. It has been logistically proven without objection that the Exynos Octacore processor has more brutal knockdown power under a constant minimal and or maximal load than the Snapdragon processor. You might want to look further into your research on this because their is pages of data available on the Web that show this tested data readily available for your consideration.
You mentioned the LTE version does charge faster. I can say that is definitely a fact and you are correct. However the reason they intend for the faster charging is because of the cellular intended purpose. That being said, keep in mind the faster the charge is applied, the faster the battery consumption will be also. Not to mention that with the 9500maH battery the lifespan will inevitably be shorter as well. Over time you will notice that the charges will get faster and faster then will stabilize at a certain point. However the Non LTE versions will charge more slowly, giving the battery life a more in depth charge and a longer life span.
If the only reason your are wanting the LTE version is because of the "Lag", then I just want to let you know that you should definitely test the LTE version before making your purchase. If you place them side by side and test them under a minimal and maximal load, you'll see the Exynos will have less lag than the LTE version.
Please don't take offense to my opinion. Im only basing my opinion on what is factual from certified research information and my experience as a developer and consumer of both products.
stondec100 said:
I used the WiFi version for about 13 days, then returned it and plan on getting the LTE version.
I found the WiFi version to be mostly smooth (certainly smoother than the Note 10.1 2014 edition, that uses the same processor), however it does indeed have minor lag.
Here are the reasons why I want the LTE version ( because it uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor) over the WiFi
1. LTE version is faster and smoother without lag (unlike the WiFi version - every Exynos device I've used has had lag )
2. There's a wider range of compatible apps for the Snapdragon (some apps I use don't work that well with Exynos chipsets)
3. LTE version changes faster
Of course the LTE version is more expensive and may not get updates as quickly as the WiFi version.
I'm not planning on getting the Verizon version but rather the international unlocked version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info. I am also planning to get an international version. I don't live in the US. I am not affected by those carriers. I haven't heard of "There's a wider range of compatible apps for the Snapdragon". I thought except the phone app, whatever works under the wifi version should work under the LTE version. What apps are compatible only with the Snapdragon? Any examples?
stondec100 said:
Here are the reasons why I want the LTE version ( because it uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor) over the WiFi
1. LTE version is faster and smoother without lag (unlike the WiFi version - every Exynos device I've used has had lag )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Exynos vs. S-800 debate is no different here than it is in the N3 and N10.1-14 forums. The N12 isn't new (it's a jumbo N10.1-14 which is already five months old) and there's nothing about it h/w wise that would make it behave any differently than the devices that came before it. Exynos and S-800 are so close in performance as to be undetectable. Certain games may perform better on Adreno than Mali but it's not so biased that people are complaining. Most of the lag being reported is in transitions and apps opening/closing. Those function never move off the A7 core in Exynos and probably use two of the four S-800 cores. Throwing more powerful h/w at the issue isn't going to change anything. The lag is caused by s/w and the s/w is materially the same on Exynos and Octa versions. I have a 3G Exynos N10.1-14 and have played with European LTE S-800 versions. I couldn't detect a performance difference and neither could my friends who own the S-800 version. And any performance difference you detect between the N10.1-14 and N12 is purely related to one being on 4.3 and the other on 4.4 with modifications to Samsung's UI and most likely drivers.
2. There's a wider range of compatible apps for the Snapdragon (some apps I use don't work that well with Exynos chipsets)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Link? Outside of a handful of games there's been nothing I've seen to support your statement. The bigger issues is apps that aren't optimized for the 2560x1600 display which affects both SoC's equally.
3. LTE version changes faster
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is definitely true. Charging the Exynos devices is painfully long.
Android.Ninja said:
As for your post #1 that states:
LTE version is faster and smoother without lag (unlike the WiFi version - every Exynos device I've used has had lag )
This is most definitely untrue. It has been logistically proven without objection that the Exynos Octacore processor has more brutal knockdown power under a constant minimal and or maximal load than the Snapdragon processor. You might want to look further into your research on this because their is pages of data available on the Web that show this tested data readily available for your consideration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You might want to take a look at the Verizon Note Pro thread. On game based benchmarks, the LTE version came up14% faster on Epic Citadel, and 50 to 200% faster in Anomaly 2 than the wifi version. Snapdragon seems to be more efficient at handling the graphics load, which might also effect perception of lag.
I appreciate the replies to my post.
1) My opinion that they Snapdragon is always smoother than the Exynos and doesn't suffer lag like the Exynos is based on experience.
I've had several Exynos devices, all with lag, especially with the Keyboard and when scrolling on chrome browser and then intermittently in various parts of the UI ( Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy note 10.1, Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition). The Qualcomm devices I own do not exhibit the same annoying lag (galaxy S III, Galaxy Note 3, Tmobile version)
2. As far as compatible apps, I've had developers tell me that the reason why their app wasn't functioning well on my Note 2 was because Samsung doesn't release certain codes\drivers for their Exynos processor and that those apps would function better on Qualcomm processors. An example that comes readily to mind is call recorder by Skvalex. Also PDF max, when using the ink tool is very laggy on Exynos devices, but not on my Note 3
3) As far as comparing both the wifi and LTE versions, I actually have had hands on with both of them and in my experience the LTE version is smoother.
I really do not plan on buying the Verizon LTE because of their shenanigans as far as locked bootloader and abominable update stance. I'm still looking to get the international unlocked version, and not really for the LTE, but more for the superior Qualcomm processor.
stondec100 said:
I've had several Exynos devices, all with lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only Exynos devices pertinent to this discussion are the N3 and N10.1-14. The SGS4 used Exynos 5410 which, sadly for its owners, was pretty much an Octa beta test. I have a S-800 N3 and Exynos N10.1-14. I've played with Exynos N3's and S-800 N10.1-14's. In terms of everyday use (app opening closings, transitions, in-app performance) I haven't been able to detect a difference. Neither have friends who've played with both versions also. The are people in the N10.1-14 forum who went from Wi-Fi versions to LTE versions and reported they performed the same.
Perhaps in certain games or high-demand apps Adreno may outperform Mali but in all but rare occasions not enough for it to matter. Adreno 330, Mali T628, and PowerVR G6430 are the three most powerful GPU's on the market right now. They are probably in about 10% of deployed devices. Are people implying that a +/- 10% difference between the above GPU's is so important that the 90% of GPU's in use (which are a minimum of 25% behind the above mentioned) are suddenly useless and games and high-demand apps will perform poorly? It's actually the reverse. Developers know that the majority of device GPU's don't perform as well as newer releases and design for the middle.
It's also useless comparing Exynos and S-800 on all but the same device. My N3 is significantly more fluid than my N10.1-14 but it has nothing to do with Exynos and everything to do with the huge disparity in display area (amount of overall pixels being pushed).
Everyone's entitled to their opinion but some of what's being pointed out isn't supported by commentary on XDA. If the difference between Exynos and S-800 were as pronounced as being claimed the N3 and N10.1-14 forums would be lit up like Christmas trees discussing it. There are some "my SoC can beat up your SoC" discussion with folks claiming superiority for both Exynos and S-800 but for the most part the consensus it they are pretty similar performance wise.
One should also note that almost any lag can be eliminated if you tune your kernel governor to your specific usage pattern. You need root of course, which is an issue until there is a root exploit that won't trip Knox. There's no way I would root such an expensive device unless I can preserve the warranty.
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk
fast charge or extra 32gb?
i am choosing between 2 models: p905 with fast charge option and p900 with 32gb more than previous one. i would like to hear the opinion of experienced users cuz never had any tablet before hence don't know what option is more significant in routine usage. in addition, i am definitely sure that never gonna use LTE function therefore in is not an advantage for me.
thus, the question is what to prefer: fast charge (is it really much faster?) or extra 32gb of memory (does it really matter for tablet?)
also the rumors tell that probably p905 with 64gb is coming soon (although, how soon and whether it will come at all...)
I have the p905 since it came out. Running smoothly. The only lag I experienced is when I played Sonic Dash. Don't know if it is a software issue with this app. Other games I tried (not that many yet) have no lag.
I bought the unlocked international 905 mainly for the faster charging and the ability to switch gsm carriers at will. 4K video, snapdragon 800 + adreno 330, no carrier bloatware, are icing on the cake imo. As far performance, this article claims a significant difference speed wise, in favor of the snap 800 adreno 330 combo. I haven't compared the two side by side. Of course ymmv.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review...ote-Pro-12-2-LTE-SM-P905-Tablet.113712.0.html
After using this Verizon S7 edge for over a week I concluded the following.
1. Cpu speed is limited to 1.6GHz - Maybe to keep heat issues down.
2. Apps. can not be moved to SD. Yes, it says it did but it's only moves cache.
3. Verizon has left off some of the software others have.
4. Ram is limited to 3.5G to start and after OS and Samsung and Verizon stuff, user has
maybe 1.6G to 1.8G to use.
5. Phone does stop and stutters at times.
6. Screen slow to respond on the edges at times.
Given all that, I do like this phone but I believe that work is need by Samsung and Verizon.
Some apps but not all can be moved to SD card. I have moved apps.
Download Samsung pay from app store. It works.
No stutters on my end so that is always phone specific: very fluid and fast for me. My iPhone 6s plus also stopped and lagged so that myth of fluidity was just that.
Edge works well for me but again maybe phone specific.
Yes, VZW did remove some things which is typical and this is not surprising or new.
Not bashing or defending Samsung, but I am impressed with this phone even owning a Nexus 6p. There, I said it. Let the bashing begin.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
mmariani said:
After using this Verizon S7 edge for over a week I concluded the following.
1. Cpu speed is limited to 1.6GHz - Maybe to keep heat issues down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I do agree that Verizon went overboard with its meddling on this device. My biggest complaints so far are
* the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
* a completely unnecessary Verizon tramp stamp on the back of this beautiful device
I am not seeing your claimed clock throttle on the CPU, however. If I keep a floating CPU usage monitor (I used the paid version of System Monitor from the Play store) on while running, for example, the Geekbench benchmark, I have seen both high speed cores ramp up to 2.2ghz, which is very close to the rated max of 2.3ghz, and that was after me using my phone almost continuously for the last several hours before running Geekbench, so a thermal throttle of 100mhz seems not all that unlikely.
Some of your other points are true for all carrier variants of the device, and possibly all devices running Android or Android Marshmallow (for example, moving apps to SD storage has never been all or nothing on Android - it is dependent on how each app is designed by its programmers as to what actually gets stored on the SD - the app may be hard coded to use primary storage for things like cache and even documents, and the reported memory on all my previous Android devices has always been less than what the manufacturer specifies as the hardware spec - I've read different explanations for this and I don't really understand why it's true, but the S7 is far from alone in this).
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
TJCacher said:
Well I do agree that Verizon went overboard with its meddling on this device. My biggest complaints so far are
* the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
* a completely unnecessary Verizon tramp stamp on the back of this beautiful device
I am not seeing your claimed clock throttle on the CPU, however. If I keep a floating CPU usage monitor (I used the paid version of System Monitor from the Play store) on while running, for example, the Geekbench benchmark, I have seen both high speed cores ramp up to 2.2ghz, which is very close to the rated max of 2.3ghz, and that was after me using my phone almost continuously for the last several hours before running Geekbench, so a thermal throttle of 100mhz seems not all that unlikely.
Some of your other points are true for all carrier variants of the device, and possibly all devices running Android or Android Marshmallow (for example, moving apps to SD storage has never been all or nothing on Android - it is dependent on how each app is designed by its programmers as to what actually gets stored on the SD - the app may be hard coded to use primary storage for things like cache and even documents, and the reported memory on all my previous Android devices has always been less than what the manufacturer specifies as the hardware spec - I've read different explanations for this and I don't really understand why it's true, but the S7 is far from alone in this).
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I was using System Monitor so I tried Geekbench 3 and they both report 1.6 GHz.
Geekbench also reports 2222 Single Core and 5227 Multi Core. Also I stand by my statement that Apps do not move to SD. I have moved more than 20 apps. and the SD shows them listed under Android/Data on the SD card but after moving over a gig of apps, the dir shows less than 20 megs of data. They are mostly empty program name folders. And yes I know how to move them. So either my phone is diff from yours or...... Thank you for your input.
markwebb said:
Some apps but not all can be moved to SD card. I have moved apps.
Download Samsung pay from app store. It works.
No stutters on my end so that is always phone specific: very fluid and fast for me. My iPhone 6s plus also stopped and lagged so that myth of fluidity was just that.
Edge works well for me but again maybe phone specific.
Yes, VZW did remove some things which is typical and this is not surprising or new.
Not bashing or defending Samsung, but I am impressed with this phone even owning a Nexus 6p. There, I said it. Let the bashing begin.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I want to know if anyone else is seeing these problems. As for the apps. they don't really move. Just a name dir. is created on the SD.
Ans to apps not moving to SD
Well folks I found the ans. on a diff. thread:
Samsung disabled the adaptive storage option. Here is the response I got from Samsung on the app data issue. I looks like they know the data isn't moving.
"I have checked our resources and found that whenever an app is moved to the SD card, only the app and the dependencies of the application for the Operating System to identify the app on the SD card are only moved. Data associated with the app is not moved to the SD card.
Let’s hope that our future updates should allow the user to move the apps data to the SD card along with the app.
I would have surely helped you if there was any other option to move the apps data to the SD card.
I appreciate your time in writing to us. "
So Samsung maybe aware and I hope they do fix this.
TJCacher said:
the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love that browser so much I'm willing to pay someone to mod the app so that we Verizon users can sideload it onto our phones.
mmariani said:
Well I was using System Monitor so I tried Geekbench 3 and they both report 1.6 GHz.
Geekbench also reports 2222 Single Core and 5227 Multi Core. Also I stand by my statement that Apps do not move to SD. I have moved more than 20 apps. and the SD shows them listed under Android/Data on the SD card but after moving over a gig of apps, the dir shows less than 20 megs of data. They are mostly empty program name folders. And yes I know how to move them. So either my phone is diff from yours or...... Thank you for your input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Geekbench reports, in its initial pre-test display, the max clock rate of cores 1 & 2, which are the cpu's 2 low power cores, and that is the correct clock rate as designed and specified by the manufacturer.
However when the benchmark is actually run, the system correctly detects the need for high power processing and the high power cores kick in, and can ramp all the way up to their maximum clock rating, assuming they do not thermally limit.
The scores you are reporting would not be obtained were all the cores being limited to 1.6ghz. You would probably be seeing well below 2000 in the single core benchmark if the high power cores were being limited to a maximum clock speed of 1.6ghz.
The score you are reporting definitely doesn't support an assertion that Verizon has set a more conservative limit to the max CPU clocks on this device, and, as I've said, if you use System Monitor's floating CPU window feature to watch the cpu clock speeds in real time as the test actually runs, you will see clock rates at or near the max speed of 2.3ghz on the two high power cores (nos. 3 & 4).
Your reply post seemed to indicate I thought you didn't know how to move apps correctly, and that I did. Not true. I haven't tried moving any apps on this phone actually, and expect I would see similar results to yours if I did so.
But as far as moving apps to SD goes, I also stand by my previous statements. Your app-moving issues have nothing to do specifically with the S7 models in any variant by any carrier including Verizon, nor for that matter, Samsung itself, but instead are due to a multitude of complicating factors, some because of Android itself, and some by the makers of the specific apps.
If you do a bit of searching on Google for discussions about having problems moving an app to SD storage, you will quickly see that it is a long-standing problem reported for many apps by many people on many different versions of Android running on many different brands and types of devices, and there are about as many reasons for it not working as there are instances of it not working right.
It's just that it seems to me like blaming app-moving problems on Verizon for mucking it up on the S7 is like blaming your vehicle's poor gas mileage on the owner of the dealership you bought your new car from. Verizon did plenty to be irritated about on this device, as well as others, but this particular issue isn't their fault. Android's app-moving feature has had problems since long before the S7 model was ever designed or built.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
TJCacher said:
Geekbench reports, in its initial pre-test display, the max clock rate of cores 1 & 2, which are the cpu's 2 low power cores, and that is the correct clock rate as designed and specified by the manufacturer.
However when the benchmark is actually run, the system correctly detects the need for high power processing and the high power cores kick in, and can ramp all the way up to their maximum clock rating, assuming they do not thermally limit.
The scores you are reporting would not be obtained were all the cores being limited to 1.6ghz. You would probably be seeing well below 2000 in the single core benchmark if the high power cores were being limited to a maximum clock speed of 1.6ghz.
The score you are reporting definitely doesn't support an assertion that Verizon has set a more conservative limit to the max CPU clocks on this device, and, as I've said, if you use System Monitor's floating CPU window feature to watch the cpu clock speeds in real time as the test actually runs, you will see clock rates at or near the max speed of 2.3ghz on the two high power cores (nos. 3 & 4).
Your reply post seemed to indicate I thought you didn't know how to move apps correctly, and that I did. Not true. I haven't tried moving any apps on this phone actually, and expect I would see similar results to yours if I did so.
But as far as moving apps to SD goes, I also stand by my previous statements. Your app-moving issues have nothing to do specifically with the S7 models in any variant by any carrier including Verizon, nor for that matter, Samsung itself, but instead are due to a multitude of complicating factors, some because of Android itself, and some by the makers of the specific apps.
If you do a bit of searching on Google for discussions about having problems moving an app to SD storage, you will quickly see that it is a long-standing problem reported for many apps by many people on many different versions of Android running on many different brands and types of devices, and there are about as many reasons for it not working as there are instances of it not working right.
It's just that it seems to me like blaming app-moving problems on Verizon for mucking it up on the S7 is like blaming your vehicle's poor gas mileage on the owner of the dealership you bought your new car from. Verizon did plenty to be irritated about on this device, as well as others, but this particular issue isn't their fault. Android's app-moving feature has had problems since long before the S7 model was ever designed or built.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry friend, I was not trying to blame anyone, just pointing out problems I found to see if it was my phone or if others noted the same. Apps don't move to me is a problem with a phone limited to 32Gigs. On my Note 3 I could move apps. to the SD but that may have been because I rooted it and mod it.
Now as for speed I agree I was wrong because the apps I used to check was not reading the correct speed.
Today I got an update to the AIDA64 app and it now notes the correct upper cpu speeds.
As I said before I do like this phone but then nothing is perfect and I want to make the best use of it.
Again just trying to get a handle on a new phone and seeing what others may have tried or worked out.
mmariani said:
Sorry friend, I was not trying to blame anyone...
...Apps don't move to me is a problem with a phone limited to 32Gigs.
...
As I said before I do like this phone but then nothing is perfect and I want to make the best use of it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry if I came off as confrontational - wasn't intended.
And we are certainly in agreement that there are some issues with this otherwise very fine phone. Like you, I hope to see at least some of these issues fixed or get decent work arounds for them.
App moving is a can of worms and without root privileges there is only so much Google can do with Android to fix it (adoptable storage probably being the most thorough approach, although I would argue that it's just substituting one can of worms for another [emoji1]).
There are a *lot* of apps that refuse to be moved without elevated permissions to do it. Other apps may allow you to move the executable image and related runtime files, but stubbornly don't allow you to pick where they store data and/or other types of resources, so the paltry savings on moving the runtime stuff doesn't help all that much.
And on a related note, I would certainly add to your observation about 32gigs that it was a mistake for Samsung not to offer carrier-branded phones in a larger memory size. I'm sure most if not all of the s7 owners who participate on XDA would have really appreciated at least a 64gig option.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Have you tried this for adoptable storage?
http://www.modaco.com/news/android/...e-adoptable-storage-on-your-s7-s7-edge-r1632/
There's a thread all about this mod right here in the Verizon S7E forum.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
mwshows said:
Have you tried this for adoptable storage?
http://www.modaco.com/news/android/...e-adoptable-storage-on-your-s7-s7-edge-r1632/
There's a thread all about this mod right here in the Verizon S7E forum.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm thinking about doing it. But I'm still checking out the phone and what others are noting. Thanks for the tip.
I'm using the Samsung browser on mine. Just downloaded it from the Play Store. I linked to it through a Chrome search and it worked.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
With every Android version, we expect them to be more feature rich and user friendly and also to deliver the better performances with more battery life but sometimes this may go the other way as with every Android version instead of lighter android experience, we get something which consumes more RAM and thus leaving lesser RAM/memory for user to utilize them for multitasking or heavy gaming.
In this post, I will be comparing the available RAM/free memory for the user with different android version. Being a user for multiple android versions, I have seen them all and experienced them all.
Android 2.3 (Gingerbread)- I used the android 2.3 version on my Samsung device which had only 256 MB RAM but still I was able to perform the tasks and still around 50-60 MB left as free memory. Yes that phone did not support any kind of heavy gaming of old times like even temple run and was able to perform the basic tasks like Facebook, WhatsApp etc.
Now let’s talk about only with respect to Honor phones and the widely used android version i.e. Kitkat, Lollipop ad Marshmallow.
Android 4.4 (Kitkat) (HONOR 4X) -This is still my favorite android version because this is feature rich android version yet provided optimal performance and better battery backup compared to other version. Out of 1.8 GB available for the user, when I boot the phone, I still get 1.36 GB of free RAM this being the highest I have noted so far in any 2 GB RAM phone and phone does pretty well in terms of performance, multitasking etc. I liked the RAM management on Kitkat so much that I even though of flashing the Kitkat ROM on my Honor 5x but unfortunately that is not avaialble as Hnor 5X was launched directly with Lollipop.
View attachment 3876211
Android 5.0/5.1 (lollipop) (HONOR 5X)-This is feature rich and provide some additional feature over previous versions but when it comes to free available memory, it does lag behind the Kitkat version. I have seen the maximum free RAM up to 1.21 GB on boot and when I really compare this version for battery, it does pretty well but not as good as Kitkat
View attachment 3876212
Android 6.0/6.1 (Marshmallow) (HONOR 5X) - one of the major changes that Marshmallow brings in is Doze effect and battery optimization but when checked for the available RAM, its lags behind the Lollipop version. You read it right, Marshmallow free RAM is less than 1 GB on boot and sometimes phone lags while multi-tasking. (Still a beta version or stable one that is not fully optimize) but I have seen battery improved compared to Lollipop version
View attachment 3876213
shashank1320 said:
With every Android version, we expect them to be more feature rich and user friendly and also to deliver the better performances with more battery life but sometimes this may go the other way as with every Android version instead of lighter android experience, we get something which consumes more RAM and thus leaving lesser RAM/memory for user to utilize them for multitasking or heavy gaming.
In this post, I will be comparing the available RAM/free memory for the user with different android version. Being a user for multiple android versions, I have seen them all and experienced them all.
Android 2.3 (Gingerbread)- I used the android 2.3 version on my Samsung device which had only 256 MB RAM but still I was able to perform the tasks and still around 50-60 MB left as free memory. Yes that phone did not support any kind of heavy gaming of old times like even temple run and was able to perform the basic tasks like Facebook, WhatsApp etc.
Now let’s talk about only with respect to Honor phones and the widely used android version i.e. Kitkat, Lollipop ad Marshmallow.
Android 4.4 (Kitkat) (HONOR 4X) -This is still my favorite android version because this is feature rich android version yet provided optimal performance and better battery backup compared to other version. Out of 1.8 GB available for the user, when I boot the phone, I still get 1.36 GB of free RAM this being the highest I have noted so far in any 2 GB RAM phone and phone does pretty well in terms of performance, multitasking etc. I liked the RAM management on Kitkat so much that I even though of flashing the Kitkat ROM on my Honor 5x but unfortunately that is not avaialble as Hnor 5X was launched directly with Lollipop.
View attachment 3876211
Android 5.0/5.1 (lollipop) (HONOR 5X)-This is feature rich and provide some additional feature over previous versions but when it comes to free available memory, it does lag behind the Kitkat version. I have seen the maximum free RAM up to 1.21 GB on boot and when I really compare this version for battery, it does pretty well but not as good as Kitkat
View attachment 3876212
Android 6.0/6.1 (Marshmallow) (HONOR 5X) - one of the major changes that Marshmallow brings in is Doze effect and battery optimization but when checked for the available RAM, its lags behind the Lollipop version. You read it right, Marshmallow free RAM is less than 1 GB on boot and sometimes phone lags while multi-tasking. (Still a beta version or stable one that is not fully optimize) but I have seen battery improved compared to Lollipop version
View attachment 3876213
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The battery improvements on the 5x are more because of EMUI 4 than MM
clsA said:
The battery improvements on the 5x are more because of EMUI 4 than MM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, emui is the best when it comes to battery saving