Related
Hi everyone
For quite a long time i've been thinking about the whole "galaxy s can do 90mpolys per second" thing.
It sounds like total bull****.
So, after many, many hours of googling, and some unanswered mails to imgtec, i'd like to know-
Can ANYONE provide any concrete info about the SGX540?
From one side i see declerations that the SGX540 can do 90 million polygons per second, and from the other side i see stuff like "Twice the performance of SGX530".
...but twice the performance of SGX530 is EXACTLY what the SGX535 has.
So is the 540 a rebrand of the 535? that can't be, so WHAT THE HELL is going on?
I'm seriously confused, and would be glad if anyone could pour light on the matter.
I asked a Samsung rep what the difference was and this is what I got:
Q: The Samsung Galaxy S uses the SGX540 vs the iPhone using the SGx535. The only data I can find seems like these two GPU's are very similar. Could you please highlight some of the differences between the SGX535 and the SGX540?
A: SGX540 is the latest GPU that provides better performance and more energy efficiency.
SGX535 is equipped with 2D Graphic Accelerator which SGX540 does not support.
I also tried getting in contact with ImgTec to find out an answer, but I haven't received a reply back. It's been two weeks now.
Also, the chip is obviously faster than snapdragon with the adreno 200 gpu. I don't know if Adreno supports TBDR, I just know it's a modified Xenon core. Also, Galaxy S uses LPDDR2 ram. So throughput is quite a bit faster, even though it's not *as* necessary with all the memory efficiencies between the Cortex A8 and TBDR on the SGX540.
thephawx said:
A: SGX540 is the latest GPU that provides better performance and more energy efficiency.
SGX535 is equipped with 2D Graphic Accelerator which SGX540 does not support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think that is the cue, for cost saving for Samsung
besides who will need a 2D Accelerator, with a CPU as fast as it's already.
The HTC Athena (HTC Advantage) failed miserably at adding the ATI 2D Accelerator which no programmers were able to take advantage of, in the end the CPU did all the work.
I'd imagine its a 535 at 45nm. Just a guess, the cpu is also 45nm
Having tried a few phones the speed in games is far better, much better fps though there is a problem that we might have to wait for any games to really test its power as most are made to run on all phones.
This was the same problem with the xbox and ps2, the xbox had more power but the ps2 was king and so games were made with its hardware in mind which held back the xbox, only now and then did a xbox only game come out that really made use of its power....years later xbox changed places which saw 360 hold the ps3 back (dont start on which is better lol) and the ps3 has to make do with 360 ports but when it has a game made just for it you really get to see what it can do...anywayits nice to know galaxy is future proof game wise and cannot wait to see what it can do in future or what someone can port on to it.
On a side note I did read that the videos run through the graphics chip which is causing blocking in dark movies (not hd...lower rips) something about it not reading the difference between shades of black, one guy found a way to turn the chip off and movies were all good, guess rest of us have to wait for firmware to sort this.
thephawx said:
A: SGX540 is the latest GPU that provides better performance and more energy efficiency.
SGX535 is equipped with 2D Graphic Accelerator which SGX540 does not support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
smart move sammy
voodoochild2008-
I wouldn't say we'd have to wait so much.
Even today, snapdragon devices don't do very well in games, since their fillrate is so low (133Mpixels)
Even the motorola droid (SGX530 at 110mhz, about 9~ Mpoly's and 280~ Mpixels with that freq) fares MUCH better in games, and actually, runs pretty much everything.
So i guess the best hardware is not yet at stake, but weaker devices should be hitting the limit soon.
bl4ckdr4g00n- Why the hell should we care? I don't see any problem with 2D content and/or videos, everything flies at lightspeed.
well I can live in hope, and I guess apples mess (aka the iphone4) will help now as firms are heading more towards android, I did read about one big firm in usa dropping marketing for apple and heading to android, and well thats what you get when you try to sell old ideas...always made me laugh when the first iphone did like 1meg photo when others were on 3meg, then it had no video when most others did, then they hype it when it moves to a 3meg cam and it does video.....omg, ok I am going to stop as it makes my blood boil that people buy into apple, yes they started the ball rolling and good on them for that but then they just sat back and started to count the money as others moved on.................oh and when I bought my galaxy the website did say "able to run games as powerfull as the xbox (old one) so is HALO too much to ask for lol
wait so what about the droid x vs the galaxy s gpu?? i know the galaxy s is way advanced in specs wise... the droid x does have a dedicated gpu can anyone explain??
The droid X still uses the SGX530, but in the droid x, as opposed to the original droid, it comes in the stock 200mhz (or at least 180)
At that state it does 12-14Mpolygons/sec and can push out 400-500Mpixels/sec
Not too shabby
he 535 is a downgrade from the 540. 540 is the latest and greatest from the PowerVR line.
Samsung did not cost cut, they've in fact spent MORE to get this chip on their Galaxy S line. No one else has the 540 besides Samsung.
Like i said, its probably just a process shrink which means our gpu uses less power and is possibly higher clocked.
p.s. desktop gfx haven't had 2d acceleration for years removing it saves transistors for more 3d / power!
This worries me as well... Seems like it might not be as great as what we thought. HOWEVER again, this is a new device that might be fixed in firmware updates. Because obviously the hardware is stellar, there's something holding it back
Pika007 said:
The droid X still uses the SGX530, but in the droid x, as opposed to the original droid, it comes in the stock 200mhz (or at least 180)
At that state it does 12-14Mpolygons/sec and can push out 400-500Mpixels/sec
Not too shabby
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.slashgear.com/droid-x-review-0793011/
"We benchmarked the DROID X using Quadrant, which measures processor, memory, I/O and 2D/3D graphics and combines them into a single numerical score. In Battery Saver mode, the DROID X scored 819, in Performance mode it scored 1,204, and in Smart mode it scored 963. In contrast, the Samsung Galaxy S running Android 2.1 – using Samsung’s own 1GHz Hummingbird CPU – scored 874, while a Google Nexus One running Android 2.2 – using Qualcomm’s 1GHz Snapdragon – scored 1,434. "
The N1's performance can be explained by the fact it's 2.2...
But the Droid X, even with the "inferior" GPU, outscored the Galaxy S? Why?
gdfnr123 said:
wait so what about the droid x vs the galaxy s gpu?? i know the galaxy s is way advanced in specs wise... the droid x does have a dedicated gpu can anyone explain??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same here. I want to know which one is has the better performance as well.
Besides that. Does anyone know which CPU is better between Dorid X and Galaxy S?
I knew that OMAP chip on the original Droid can overclock to 1.2Ghz from what, 550Mhz?
How about the CPU on Droid X and Galaxy S? Did anyone do the comparison between those chips? Which can overclock to a higher clock and which one is better overall?
Sorry about the poor English. Hope you guys can understand.
The CPU in the DroidX is a stock Cortex A8 running at 1GHz. The Samsung Hummingbird is a specialized version of the Cortex A8 designed by Intrinsity running at 1Ghz.
Even Qualcomm does a complete redesign of the Cortex A8 in the snapdragon cpu at 1GHz. But while the original A8 could only be clocked at 600Mhz with a reasonable power drain, the striped down versions of the A8 could be clocked higher while maintaining better power.
An untouched Cortex A8 can do more at the same frequencies compared to a specialized stripped down A8.
If anything the Samsung Galaxy S is better balanced, leveraging the SGX 540 as a video decoder as well. However, the Droid X should be quite snappy in most uses.
At the end of the day. You really shouldn't care too much about obsolescence. I mean the Qualcomm Dual-core scorpion chip is probably going to be coming out around December.
Smart phones are moving at a blisteringly fast pace.
TexUs-
I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Quadrant isn't too serious of a benchmark, plus, i think you can blame it on the fact that 2D acceleration in the SGS is done by the processor, while the DROID X has 2D acceleration by the GPU.
I can assure you- There is no way in hell that the SGX540 is inferior to the 530. It's at least twice as strong in everything related to 3D acceleration.
I say- let's wait for froyo for all devices, let all devices clear from "birth ropes" of any kind, and test again. with more than one benchmark.
Pika007 said:
TexUs-
I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Quadrant isn't too serious of a benchmark, plus, i think you can blame it on the fact that 2D acceleration in the SGS is done by the processor, while the DROID X has 2D acceleration by the GPU.
I can assure you- There is no way in hell that the SGX540 is inferior to the 530. It's at least twice as strong in everything related to 3D acceleration.
I say- let's wait for froyo for all devices, let all devices clear from "birth ropes" of any kind, and test again. with more than one benchmark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The SGS might be falling behind in I/O speeds... It is well known that all the app data is stored in a slower internal SD-card partition... Has anyone tried the benchmarks with the lag fix?
Also, if only android made use of the GPU's to help render the UI's... It's such a shame that the GPU only goes to use in games...
Using the GPU to render the UI would take tons of battery power.
I preffer it being a bit less snappy, but a whole lot easier on the battery.
thephawx said:
At the end of the day. You really shouldn't care too much about obsolescence. I mean the Qualcomm Dual-core scorpion chip is probably going to be coming out around December.
Smart phones are moving at a blisteringly fast pace.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Smart phones aren't but batteries are.
IMO the only way we haven't had huge battery issues because all the other tech (screen, RAM power, CPU usage, etc) has improved...
Dual core or 2Ghz devices sound nice on paper but I worry if the battery technology can keep up.
TexUs said:
Smart phones aren't but batteries are.
IMO the only way we haven't had huge battery issues because all the other tech (screen, RAM power, CPU usage, etc) has improved...
Dual core or 2Ghz devices sound nice on paper but I worry if the battery technology can keep up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think so. The battery will be the biggest issue for the smart phone in the future if it just remain 1500mAh or even less.
The dual-core CPU could be fast but power aggressive as well.
Since the launch of SGS3 is around the corner and the next note will probably come within next few months, I thought of starting this thread to know how many users prefer having Quad Exynos 4 ( similar to SGS3 which is based on A9 arcitecture with Mali 400 GPU built using 32nm manufacturing process) or dual Exynos 5 (A15 architecture with Mali T604 GPU which is based on probably 28nm manufacturing process)in our next Note...
Cast your votes in the poll
You should put a POLL, it would get more people interested. But for me, I'd rather get the A15 with the Mali 604T since A15 is supposedly to be 40% faster than A9 and the Mali 604T will blow the Mali 400 away.
Definitely the dual A15 with Mali 604. No doubt.
Sent from my superior GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
I dont see any benifit by haveing a quad core cpu. Most apps dont even use the duel core.
Cant fault my note at all. So just the new duel will do with less battery drain
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
Quad! I don't care if I don't use it, and I don't care if I don't need it.
It just feels good to have that much power in the palm of your hand.
I'll benefit from that much power since I play games and I look forward to more capable emulators in the future.
I don't give a CRAP about the amount of cores!
I want the most speed that's possible, if that would be with dthe dual i take that, if it's with de quad, then thats my way to go...
Can't vote in the poll because i want speed, and since it's not sure wich one is faster i can't vote!
PS
I think the Exynos 5 will be released @ the end of this year, and the Exynos 4 tomorow
If that's correct i go with the Exynos 4, i hate waiting
what the note lacks is a decent GPU. the current GPU can't efficiently handle the 1280x800 pixels. however what i want more than anything is 1. non-pentile screen that is FLAWLESS and 2. a bigger battery still ~3000 mAh like the RAZR max. I would gladly sacrifice a few mm for a larger battery. I find it stupid how HTC decided to go with a slim and NON-REMOVABLE battery and storage to save a few mm. Seriously? This is why HTC is falling in a deep pit.
Exynos 5 dual, it has more power and is more efficient
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA
EASILY the A15 with the T-604! Come to papa!
The fastest clock speed and the best GPU is all that matters. 2.2 ghz 2 core with a fab GPU will blow away a 10 core 1.0 ghz with a bad gpu everyday every way.
How about the beast Quad Core A15 Exynos 5450 with Mali T-658? Ok, ok, I know technically it hasn't been built yet and will probably be for tablets, but wouldn't mind seeing it in the Note since it is a tab/phone hybrid.
But as for the current SoC's available now, I would take the A15 dual Exynos 5250 with Mali T-604.
More likely, I think Samsung's road map would be to release the flagship Galaxy S lines (in this case the GS 3) with the latest SoC's, then the next Note (Note 2 in this case) would get a slight spec bump based on the Galaxy S 3 with a faster clocked CPU/GPU combo of the Galaxy S 3 line 6 months later, then the GS4 would get next Gen SoCs with the Note 3 getting a spec bump of the GS 4 SoCs, etc.....
I am sorry.. but this amounts to techie circle jerking..
Quad core processors came out for the PC when not a single application could even use two cores, much less four.. Even today, several years later, for the very very vast majority of applications, it is hard to get a PC to run more that one and a bit processors.. My i7 snoozes, and even cranking up real time low latency audio(a stressful activity)it runs 2 processors at 30% and one at 5%
Therefore I frankly do not care if they put a hamster and a wheel inside the device...as long as the results in operation of the device meets my needs.
So, given my customer needs are for smoother, faster and more reliable operation with better battery life and an enhanced user experience, Samsung can put whatever they want into the device...
In saying that, decisions by the majority of folks are driven by what they think the specifications mean, rather than the impact or result of those specifications in real life usage, so while i am sure its not necessary, a next Note will for sure have a quad core.
With a single core my galaxy s with ics is snappier than my note. Finally its the software I guess.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA
Mystic38 said:
I am sorry.. but this amounts to techie circle jerking..
Quad core processors came out for the PC when not a single application could even use two cores, much less four.. Even today, several years later, for the very very vast majority of applications, it is hard to get a PC to run more that one and a bit processors.. My i7 snoozes, and even cranking up real time low latency audio(a stressful activity)it runs 2 processors at 30% and one at 5%
Therefore I frankly do not care if they put a hamster and a wheel inside the device...as long as the results in operation of the device meets my needs.
So, given my customer needs are for smoother, faster and more reliable operation with better battery life and an enhanced user experience, Samsung can put whatever they want into the device...
In saying that, decisions by the majority of folks are driven by what they think the specifications mean, rather than the impact or result of those specifications in real life usage, so while i am sure its not necessary, a next Note will for sure have a quad core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Android multitasking would need to be vastly different than what it is today, and on top of this the RAM specs need a major bump to even begin to show advantages in multi-core processing.
Also like you said, it has not mattered for deskptops and laptops what the real-world benefits are, just what the consumer feels about the value in their purchase. Nowadays it seems people are more concerned with the number of cores as opposed to the clock speed.
I do like the approach that Ti has taken with the OMAP in dedicating low-power cores to low-power functions, and feel that it really has potential in mobile devices, but they seem to be a step behind when it comes to the bigger tasks of mobile processing. Intel being on the cusp of Haswell has me excited to see what they can do in this territory.
Dual Exynos 5 for me at the moment.
It'll be interesting to see how they market this dual core a15 processor because joe public, will always think more cores is better. I do feel though that the note 2 might not have the same internals as the s3, like our notes had the same as the s2. For the note they seemed to put in all the best tech they had on offer at the tine, so if the a15 is ready to go by November time then I think they'll defo use it unless something better is available.
Dual core with speed.
Quad cores mean squat if they slow the primary usage down.
I'd rather get a dual than a quad even if its on the same generation and process so long as it is clocked higher. Give me a smaller process, newer gen chip and better gpu? There is no choice.
Id go for the i7 3960x and gtx 690 if they can squeeze that in the next note but I think I wont get a choice and will just end up with whatever Samsung puts into the note 2.
Mystic38 said:
I am sorry.. but this amounts to techie circle jerking..
Quad core processors came out for the PC when not a single application could even use two cores, much less four.. Even today, several years later, for the very very vast majority of applications, it is hard to get a PC to run more that one and a bit processors.. My i7 snoozes, and even cranking up real time low latency audio(a stressful activity)it runs 2 processors at 30% and one at 5%
Therefore I frankly do not care if they put a hamster and a wheel inside the device...as long as the results in operation of the device meets my needs.
So, given my customer needs are for smoother, faster and more reliable operation with better battery life and an enhanced user experience, Samsung can put whatever they want into the device...
In saying that, decisions by the majority of folks are driven by what they think the specifications mean, rather than the impact or result of those specifications in real life usage, so while i am sure its not necessary, a next Note will for sure have a quad core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you....the main reason I created this thread, because I wanted to know how many members actually know the effect of system architecture and the manufacturing process will affect the day to day performance of the device, battery consumption etc.,it was never about the software but I know it everything comes to the OS how deeply it is integrated with the hardware and how effectively it co-ordinates with them...this is why Apple's devices are snappier than the android...the problem here is Samsung is more concerned about bringing more devices out than focusing on the system's deep integration...so it only comes to the fact that the thread is only about the hardware... but the discussion about the embedded systems is also welcomed....
adelmundo said:
How about the beast Quad Core A15 Exynos 5450 with Mali T-658? Ok, ok, I know technically it hasn't been built yet and will probably be for tablets, but wouldn't mind seeing it in the Note since it is a tab/phone hybrid.
But as for the current SoC's available now, I would take the A15 dual Exynos 5250 with Mali T-604.
More likely, I think Samsung's road map would be to release the flagship Galaxy S lines (in this case the GS 3) with the latest SoC's, then the next Note (Note 2 in this case) would get a slight spec bump based on the Galaxy S 3 with a faster clocked CPU/GPU combo of the Galaxy S 3 line 6 months later, then the GS4 would get next Gen SoCs with the Note 3 getting a spec bump of the GS 4 SoCs, etc.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I heard that Note 10.1 tablet is being delayed because Samsung wanted the device with quad than dual...so there is a little chance that the next Hybrid Note will come with some other spec....
Quite a simple question really, which was already mentioned in the title of the thread. What do you believe to be the best tablet? A 16 GB Nexus 7 WiFi model or a 16 GB Nexus 10 WiFi model?
Hmm...
Brad387 said:
Quite a simple question really, which was already mentioned in the title of the thread. What do you believe to be the best tablet? A 16 GB Nexus 7 WiFi model or a 16 GB Nexus 10 WiFi model?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kind of an odd question really. Clearly the 10 has better specs, including screen.
But I'm pretty sure many of us bought a Nexus 7 because it was 7 inches portable. So, I'm pretty confident saying that the Nexus 7 is a better 7 inch tab than the 10 is.
PMOttawa said:
Kind of an odd question really. Clearly the 10 has better specs, including screen.
But I'm pretty sure many of us bought a Nexus 7 because it was 7 inches portable. So, I'm pretty confident saying that the Nexus 7 is a better 7 inch tab than the 10 is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it is obvious that the Nexus 7 (which is a 7" tab) is better at being a 7" tablet than a Nexus 10 (which isn't a 7" tab, but a 10" one). However, isn't the Nexus 10 only a dual-core processor? I know the screen resolution is quite amazing, but besides that isn't it actually worse?
CPU: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a15.php
GPU: http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-t604.php
CPU core count isn't all that matters. I don't have any real-world benchmarks, but I'm pretty sure that CPU alone can execute tasks faster and better than the Tegra 3. And since the GPU and CPU aren't on the same chip (that I know of), that also comes with it's share of better performance.
espionage724 said:
CPU: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a15.php
GPU: http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-t604.php
CPU core count isn't all that matters. I don't have any real-world benchmarks, but I'm pretty sure that CPU alone can execute tasks faster and better than the Tegra 3. And since the GPU and CPU aren't on the same chip (that I know of), that also comes with it's share of better performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This ^.
You cant really justify which is better becuase the size difference. Like the first poster said we all bought this for the form factor. So to us the N7 is better regardless of the specs. However spec wise... i would go with the N10.
Two completely different forms factors and uses. They are both great devices.
CPU in the N10 is about twice as fast as the best A9 (S4 Pro) out now. It is more than likely about 3-4 times faster than the T3.
Two different devices for different purposes, its like comparing a motor bike to a car
Brad387 said:
Quite a simple question really, which was already mentioned in the title of the thread. What do you believe to be the best tablet? A 16 GB Nexus 7 WiFi model or a 16 GB Nexus 10 WiFi model?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is like asking: 'What is the best: a semi or a van?'
Those 2 tablets are just in a different market, ergo not comparable.
If you don't take the size in the comparison, the Nexus 10 would win: more efficient/faster processor, way better grafics, almost quadripple resolution, ..etc.
By specs, N10 destroys the N7.
In terms of pure performance, which one is better?
The Nexus 10 is a dual core vs Tegra 3 Quad core.
2gb ram vs 1gb ram.
Also take in consideration Tegra Zone support, although not really related to performance. The Tegra 3 gets larger list of premium games.
killer8297 said:
In terms of pure performance, which one is better?
The Nexus 10 is a dual core vs Tegra 3 Quad core.
2gb ram vs 1gb ram.
Also take in consideration Tegra Zone support, although not really related to performance. The Tegra 3 gets larger list of premium games.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't even a comparison. The N10 slaughters the N7. Pros vs joes if you will.
I'd still keep my 7". It performs just fine for what I need it for. 10" is too big. I'm more comfortable with my laptop at that point.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app
Tegra has CPUs and GPU on a single chip, and other details
espionage724 said:
CPU core count isn't all that matters. I don't have any real-world benchmarks, but I'm pretty sure that CPU alone can execute tasks faster and better than the Tegra 3. And since the GPU and CPU aren't on the same chip (that I know of), that also comes with it's share of better performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are confused.
The Tegra is a System-on-Chip ("SoC") that has both CPU and GPU cores on the same die. The CPU complex has four A9 ARM cores, plus a fifth "ninja" A7 core. The GPU has 12 cores, plus a number of special functional units. All cores access the shared RAM through a single memory controller.
The CPU complex spends most of its time running only the power-optimized "ninja" core, with the other cores powered off. The ninja CPU has a simpler A7 core and is implemented with power-optimized low-leakage transistors. (The A7 core does less speculative work, and thus is more power efficient than the A9 cores even taking into account the extra clock cycles needed.) If the workload increases, the main cores are powered up and execution is switched over, with the ninja core left idle in a low power mode.
The GPU complex has 12 general execution units, but these aren't directly comparable to CPU cores. You can't even compare them to the "cores" in other types of GPUs. In addition, there are other special units such as video and audio decoders in the GPU complex. These operations could be done on the main CPU or, sometimes, the GPU. But they are common and power-hungry enough to get hard-wired logic.
All of this complexity makes it really difficult to benchmark and compare. Or really easy, if your goal is to make one product look faster than another.
The Tegra is carefully tuned to do HD video decode with only the ninja core and GPU turned on, thus consuming little power. There is just enough CPU time left over to supervise the cellular modem for housekeeping operations, or do other trivial tasks. But if you add in just a little application work, the main four cores are activated and power usage goes way up.
Another way to skew the test result is to pick specific micro benchmarks. The Apple A5 (which is unrelated to the ARM numbers e.g. A7 and A9) was designed for a high resolution screen, and knowing that many early apps would be iPhone apps with pixel doubling. They put extra gates to increase the pixel fill rate and smoothing performance. This resulted in a bigger chip, but better performance with modest power use for these functions.
My estimation: The Nexus 7 with Tegra 3 is faster, has the potential to be more power efficient, and will have better long-term support and improvements. The N10 has the big advantage of 2GB of memory, which may become important with future versions of Android.
becker. said:
You are confused.
The Tegra is a System-on-Chip ("SoC") that has both CPU and GPU cores on the same die. The CPU complex has four A9 ARM cores, plus a fifth "ninja" A7 core. The GPU has 12 cores, plus a number of special functional units. All cores access the shared RAM through a single memory controller.
The CPU complex spends most of its time running only the power-optimized "ninja" core, with the other cores powered off. The ninja CPU has a simpler A7 core and is implemented with power-optimized low-leakage transistors. (The A7 core does less speculative work, and thus is more power efficient than the A9 cores even taking into account the extra clock cycles needed.) If the workload increases, the main cores are powered up and execution is switched over, with the ninja core left idle in a low power mode.
The GPU complex has 12 general execution units, but these aren't directly comparable to CPU cores. You can't even compare them to the "cores" in other types of GPUs. In addition, there are other special units such as video and audio decoders in the GPU complex. These operations could be done on the main CPU or, sometimes, the GPU. But they are common and power-hungry enough to get hard-wired logic.
All of this complexity makes it really difficult to benchmark and compare. Or really easy, if your goal is to make one product look faster than another.
The Tegra is carefully tuned to do HD video decode with only the ninja core and GPU turned on, thus consuming little power. There is just enough CPU time left over to supervise the cellular modem for housekeeping operations, or do other trivial tasks. But if you add in just a little application work, the main four cores are activated and power usage goes way up.
Another way to skew the test result is to pick specific micro benchmarks. The Apple A5 (which is unrelated to the ARM numbers e.g. A7 and A9) was designed for a high resolution screen, and knowing that many early apps would be iPhone apps with pixel doubling. They put extra gates to increase the pixel fill rate and smoothing performance. This resulted in a bigger chip, but better performance with modest power use for these functions.
My estimation: The Nexus 7 with Tegra 3 is faster, has the potential to be more power efficient, and will have better long-term support and improvements. The N10 has the big advantage of 2GB of memory, which may become important with future versions of Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best answer I've seen.
And has been said before, surely, in the end it comes down to what do you want to do with it. I prefer my n7 because 10" tablets are simply too big and uncomfortable
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Real world experience will require the device in hand. The resolution being pushed will need a lot more backbone to provide the same smooth experience as the lower resolution device. Just look at the iPad 2 vs 3. The iPad 2 felt like a better experience because of the lower resolution. Most people couldn't even tell the two apart or correctly identify which was one or the other.
Resolution that high is retarded on a 10" screen. Waste of battery and resources.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA Premium HD app
I say wait another 3 months before committed to buying 10 inch. Google might upgrade its 10 inch with 3G, who knows, having experiencing what they did with 7 inch.
player911 said:
Real world experience will require the device in hand. The resolution being pushed will need a lot more backbone to provide the same smooth experience as the lower resolution device. Just look at the iPad 2 vs 3. The iPad 2 felt like a better experience because of the lower resolution. Most people couldn't even tell the two apart or correctly identify which was one or the other.
Resolution that high is retarded on a 10" screen. Waste of battery and resources.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree.A super display is great if everything is built to look good on it but not if it comes at too big of cost in performance.That is what happened to the ipad 3.They made a good device pretty, but slow.On a small screen most can't tell the difference in dvd quality and full hd.Both would look good but one would smoke the other with the same hardware doing other things. jmo
player911 said:
The iPad 2 felt like a better experience because of the lower resolution. Most people couldn't even tell the two apart or correctly identify which was one or the other.
Resolution that high is retarded on a 10" screen. Waste of battery and resources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Keep in mind why the iPad has pointlessly high resolution. It wasn't that Apple wanted to provide an exceptional experience. It was that the underlying software wasn't designed for different screen sizes and proportions. They had a choice between redesigning the API combined with converting apps, or making the screen exactly double the number of pixels in each direction. Apple's big market advantage was the higher app count, and many apps wouldn't be converted to a new interface ("walking dead" / will never be updated). So they went with a hardware solution, and marketed the "retina display" as a plus rather than a work-around for a primitive API. (A replay of the Mac ROM holding back OS improvements.)
Ofcourse specs wise N10 wins..But N10 lacks some features like its only WIFI no 3G/2G !!! it will be tough for my country .
Hey guys,
Was playing something a few days ago and i noticed it worked like utter crap and today i ran Geekbench 3 a few times and i got results for single core between 472 and 670 and i saw most people are getting 900+. What can affect the phone in such a horrible way? Any ideeas? This is not acceptable.
EDIT: I just noticed the following when comparing the benchmarks (mine is the lower one)
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/4255827?baseline=4255794
The processor IDs differ:
ARM implementer 65 architecture 8 variant 0 part 3331 revision 3 (crap one)
ARM implementer 65 architecture 8 variant 1 part 3335 revision 2 (good one)
Anything to comment on this? Should i return the device?
UPDATE: The Processor IDs differ based on the which cores are running so variant 1 p3335 r2 are all hexa cores running while the other variant has only the quad cores running at max speed or throttled down to avoid overheating.
Bottom line is the fact that as soon as the processor starts to overheat then the CPU throttling kicks and performance of the handset goes to hell. It heats after 5 minutes if you use CPU intensive apps so beware. The single core performance halves after a maximum of 10 minutes while the multi core performance will drop as well but by a 40% amount, that's why you will see bad results in Antutu Benchmark and Geekbench after your CPU is already hot or you run a lot of tests.
I have the same revision as yours as roughly the same score as the other processor Id.
are you rooted? stock rom? Any application issues? Assuming you have a titanium backup or similar of your applications, have you tried redownloading the factory image from google?I have the 335 processor id and score1301
I have the 2nd variant
I just installed GeekBench 3 and tested the phone. The score I got is: 1221 and 3506
Seriously weird, now it's showing up as variant 1. First 1-2 tests score above 1.2k the subsequent ones score below 800...
Can you guys run the test 3-4 times to see if the results change?
PS: Stock rom, no root, fresh format.
Question: what's the difference between MDB08L MDB08M MDB08I and MDA89E. I assume they're the builds in order of release with MDB08M being the latest?
MrHollow said:
Seriously weird, now it's showing up as variant 1. First 1-2 tests score above 1.2k the subsequent ones score below 800...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The phone throttles pretty hard when it gets hot, check out the anandtech review the big cores throttle after less than 2 minutes constant load and shut down completely after 12 minutes.
I have a case on mine and the first 3 runs were around 1200, more runs after that were in the 800s including one that was 664.
It's kind of lame, makes me wish I'd waited for 16nm because i think these 64-bit stock ARM cores in 28nm might actually be worse than the custom 32-bit ones from previous years (RAM usage is lower too with 32-bit as well for some reason). The only advantage I can think of is that 32-bit support will be dropped at some point but that's a long way off.
@haloimplant thanks for the info... So basically my phone ain't crap, it's the QC SD 808 which is complete garbage -_-
C:\Users\adrag>adb shell cat /proc/cpuinfo
Processor : AArch64 Processor rev 3 (aarch64)
processor : 0
processor : 1
processor : 2
processor : 3
processor : 4
processor : 5
Features : fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32
CPU implementer : 0x41
CPU architecture: 8
CPU variant : 0x0
CPU part : 0xd03
CPU revision : 3
Hardware : Qualcomm Technologies, Inc MSM8992
Well it can be seen from the above info that my revision is older....
Yeah this generation of SoCs just isn't very good...first cut of 64-bit cores on an almost 4-year old process node... Oh well I'm still happy with the fingerprint scanner and camera and performance is good enough for my usage (reddit and email mostly). Games I tried slowed down pretty horrifically though, they are probably the only use case that really drives a heavy constant load.
haloimplant said:
Yeah this generation of SoCs just isn't very good...first cut of 64-bit cores on an almost 4-year old process node... Oh well I'm still happy with the fingerprint scanner and camera and performance is good enough for my usage (reddit and email mostly). Games I tried slowed down pretty horrifically though, they are probably the only use case that really drives a heavy constant load.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say the camera and constant updates are the only thing that keeps this phone together... Coming from an OnePlus ONE to this and i am mostly appalled by the horrific performance of the 5X and from all t he reviews that I read nothing mentioned a horrible throttling. That anandtech article is good though, thanks for the tip!
Charkatak said:
I just installed GeekBench 3 and tested the phone. The score I got is: 1221 and 3506
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My details say variant 1 part 3335 revision 2 and I'm getting almost exactly the same scores as you: 1227 and 3506.
jimv1983 said:
My details say variant 1 part 3335 revision 2 and I'm getting almost exactly the same scores as you: 1227 and 3506.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same variant and nearly same scores 1263 and 3439.
Done some more tests today to make sure i'm not completely drunk:
Played a bit with the phone (settings menu) and ran a GB3 test
Results: single 770 multi 2931
Let the phone cool down for 5 minutes and ran another GB3 test:
Results: single 1230 multi 3447
Processor ID: ARM implementer 65 arhitecture 8 variant 1 part 3335 revision 2
What i don't understand is why if i look into cpuinfo i get the other variant info.
Hi
haloimplant said:
The phone throttles pretty hard when it gets hot, check out the anandtech review the big cores throttle after less than 2 minutes constant load and shut down completely after 12 minutes.
I have a case on mine and the first 3 runs were around 1200, more runs after that were in the 800s including one that was 664.
It's kind of lame, makes me wish I'd waited for 16nm because i think these 64-bit stock ARM cores in 28nm might actually be worse than the custom 32-bit ones from previous years (RAM usage is lower too with 32-bit as well for some reason). The only advantage I can think of is that 32-bit support will be dropped at some point but that's a long way off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is how they are designed to work, they can not really work any other way, and after a short time of being pushed hard the SoC has no option but to throttle down the CPU. Cooling can be active or passive, active cooling requires a heat-sink and fan, passive cooling works by reducing CPU speed until temperatures reduce to normal levels, you can also have a combination of the two like most laptops and even desktop PCs. When you have a smart phone, active cooling isn't possible, so how else can the SoC be cooled down?
The 16nm will be just the same, because marketing will dictate selling the CPU at higher clock rates, so pushing a bench-marking program will give you higher numbers due to the faster CPU speed, but then will quickly throttle back, so you will still get the difference between fast and slow due to passive cooling, just the slow might not be as slow, but then again it could be worse. The problem is that the smaller the SoC the harder it is to remove the heat as it has a smaller surface area, so I wouldn't expect much improvement overall, just the max and mins should be higher then previous generations but the performance drop will still be evident.
If you want to play the latest demanding games for more than a few minutes, a smart phone isn't the device to do it on, it just isn't designed for it.
Regards
Phil
@PhilipL I'm sorry but i just cannot agree with you on this. On my old OnePlus One i could play Dominations without any problems and the throttling was almost non existent (QC Snapdragon 801) but on the 5X it's sluggish as soon as i enter it so yeah... I don't think this kind of garbage is acceptable on a newer generation of processors, i've had a friend do the same test on his HTC One M7 and the results after 5-6 runs were of about 650 on single core and about 2100 on multicore which was just a tiny bit slower than my Nexus 5X after 3-4 runs.
How is ANY of this even close to being normal on newer phones? How and WHY is the Snapdragon 801 faster and better than my Snapdragon 808. Can someone explain who had this garbage idea of throttling the processor that hard to bring the speeds down to something worse the last year's processor? If this is how they solve processor overheating on the Snapdragon 820 as well then they might as well throw it in the garbage can.
Furthermore why doesn't the Exynos 7420 on the S6 behave in the same why? Why does it throttle only so slightly that it almost unnoticeable ?
Swappa.com
What are you guys using your phone for? Running benchmarks the whole day? I can't see any performance issue in real life.
No, but i had the 5X for a few days, sent it back because of a dead pixel and now i'm thinking about getting a new one or if i should wait. The touchscreen of my N4 stopped working properly a week ago, which makes it even harder to wait.
But to get on the topic: I had the 5X and the Moto X Pure/Style to see which one i like more, ultimately it was the 5X because of the better camera in normal/low light and the size.
I played around with Geekbench and Riptide 2 (after reading the Anandtech review) and can confirm the throttling on the 5X. The thing is, this wasn't the case on the Moto X, i could play a round of Riptide and run Geekbench a few times or run 4-5 Geekbench passes and the score didn't go to hell like on the 5X.
This also translates into real life usage, if you take more than a few HDR+ images, for example, which makes it a bit of a problem. ;(
I don't know if the throttling on the 5X is just really conservative (altough the phone got quite warm) or if the cooling on the Moto X just works better because of the aluminum body.
ph0b0z said:
No, but i had the 5X for a few days, sent it back because of a dead pixel and now i'm thinking about getting a new one or if i should wait. The touchscreen of my N4 stopped working properly a week ago, which makes it even harder to wait.
But to get on the topic: I had the 5X and the Moto X Pure/Style to see which one i like more, ultimately it was the 5X because of the better camera in normal/low light and the size.
I played around with Geekbench and Riptide 2 (after reading the Anandtech review) and can confirm the throttling on the 5X. The thing is, this wasn't the case on the Moto X, i could play a round of Riptide and run Geekbench a few times or run 4-5 Geekbench passes and the score didn't go to hell like on the 5X.
This also translates into real life usage, if you take more than a few HDR+ images, for example, which makes it a bit of a problem. ;(
I don't know if the throttling on the 5X is just really conservative (altough the phone got quite warm) or if the cooling on the Moto X just works better because of the aluminum body.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have both phones right now, and i disagree. I can see no difference in every day preformance.
Sendt fra min Nexus 5X med Tapatalk
Well, it's already snowing in denmark!
But about general usage and every day performance, i think you're absolutely right. Some "problems" due to the thermal throttling should only apply to "corner cases".
Rogoshin said:
I have both phones right now, and i disagree. I can see no difference in every day preformance.
Sendt fra min Nexus 5X med Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cidefix said:
What are you guys using your phone for? Running benchmarks the whole day? I can't see any performance issue in real life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty much nothing and still it's laggy. Starting apps is slow, installation of new apps is slow and slows the device down to a crawl as well. I see many blaming encryption as LG G4 has the same NAND and it's 30% faster.
I will buy a galaxy s7 edge next week, but for now in stores only the exynos version is available in my country. Is it a good soc? Or should I wait more for the snapdragon phone?
On my note 3 the exynos chip was considered pretty bad, on both performance and battery life.
Exynos = Better CPU, Battery drain mostly from radio cell.
Snapdragon = Better GPU. Battery drain mostly from Android system (not sure is it fix able by update. )
If you're that person that love installing AOSP ROM. Snapdragon is your choice.
bibiner said:
Exynos = Better CPU, Battery drain mostly from radio cell.
Snapdragon = Better GPU. Battery drain mostly from Android system (not sure is it fix able by update. )
If you're that person that love installing AOSP ROM. Snapdragon is your choice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will definetly root, most likely on day one, but I doubt I will be using AOSP roms.
Gaming on a phone isn't for me as well, I have my iPad or ps4 for that.
So the exynos runs better for day to day tasks?
For day to day tasks, there's no difference
For me I would prefer SD, cuz the ROM, kernel and mod development is much much better and I'm a flashaholic but in Europe only the exynos is available. And I'm scared there won't be so much to flash\development...
Am I right? How was the ROMs, kernels ect. on s6 edge exynos? Will devs come support us?
lvnatic said:
I will definetly root, most likely on day one, but I doubt I will be using AOSP roms.
Gaming on a phone isn't for me as well, I have my iPad or ps4 for that.
So the exynos runs better for day to day tasks?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to tests i've seen, yes.
Thanks for the replies, I'm going with the exynos then and I will preorder it as well, so I can get that vr.
CuBz90 said:
According to tests i've seen, yes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These tests being?
If your in Europe then it's not worth the hassle to get the snapdragon version IMO. That being said, the snapdragon has the better GPU, modem, higher single threaded performance, and more than likely a better ISP, DSP, etc and other blocks of the SOC. The exynos will have better multithreaded performance, just due to the fact that it has 8 cores vs the snapdragons 4, even though per core the snapdragons are faster. Like others have said developement will be noticeably less on the exynos. You will still get custom Roms but I wouldn't expect cm or aosp within a year, or ever. In dqy to day performance I would expect the snapdragons 4 very fast cores to be more responsive than the 4 slow cores and 4 fast cores of the exynos, especially considering most of the normal ui is processed on the slow cores and has to migrate to the fast cores when it needs it.
Xileforce said:
If your in Europe then it's not worth the hassle to get the snapdragon version IMO. That being said, the snapdragon has the better GPU, modem, higher single threaded performance, and more than likely a better ISP, DSP, etc and other blocks of the SOC. The exynos will have better multithreaded performance, just due to the fact that it has 8 cores vs the snapdragons 4, even though per core the snapdragons are faster. Like others have said developement will be noticeably less on the exynos. You will still get custom Roms but I wouldn't expect cm or aosp within a year, or ever. In dqy to day performance I would expect the snapdragons 4 very fast cores to be more responsive than the 4 slow cores and 4 fast cores of the exynos, especially considering most of the normal ui is processed on the slow cores and has to migrate to the fast cores when it needs it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is your basis for these arguments? Seems like most people in this thread are just making stuff up without quoting any real-world tests. Even Anandtech stated that the SoCs are pretty much equal (as far as they currently know, and they have already written pretty extensively about both SoCs), and that efficiency is what is going to set them apart. I wouldn't draw any conclusions without actually reading a comprehensive comparison of the two.
I just pulled the trigger on an Exynos version, despite living in the U.S.
Reasons you might consider the Exynos over the SD820:
1) LTE Bands, the Exynos version has far more LTE Bands for use around the world. If you travel around a bit, then it makes a bit of sense to have a phone that can receive data, regardless of the network you're on.
2) Battery drain: it looks like both SoC's are plagued with one thing or another that saps battery life, but the SD820 has an alarming amount of drain from the Android system. It still has great SoT (screen on time), but it's still a worry nonetheless.
3) Carrier lock: If you find yourself on one network, then this shouldn't be an issue. But within the past 2 years, I have been on a AT&T, then a business T-Mobile line, then Google Fi, and now on an AT&T business line. If the phone locks to a carrier, then you might have to wait longer or pay to get it unlocked.. which can be a drag.
That being said, I'm sure the development for the SD820 version will be immense. However, I'm coming from a Nexus 6P, and feel like the stock S7E ROM performs so well, that I won't need to root or anything. Android has reached a level of smoothness that was not found on earlier versions, especially in tandem with TouchWiz of old (older Notes and S phones were laggy, really). So stock ROM with the ability to use Android Pay/Samsung Pay will be nice.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
I just pre ordered the UK S7 Edge, hoping it'll be Exynos.
In the benchmark thread people are getting virtually identical Antutu scores across chips. It looks like the Snapdragon is throttling earlier than the Exynos though, they always have ran hotter.
cepheid46e2 said:
These tests being?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In singel core performance, the SD is a few % better. But in multi core, the exynos is about 20% ahead. So it does seem to run better with the CPU. Also it seems to run cooler, so throttling should be better.
TeamSlayr said:
In singel core performance, the SD is a few % better. But in multi core, the exynos is about 20% ahead. So it does seem to run better with the CPU. Also it seems to run cooler, so throttling should be better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We need someone to run consecutive 3dmark runs on the exynos in order to know whether the gpu throttles or not, and if so after how many runs. We already know neither will throttle the cpu in geekbench, but the SD820 throttles the gpu a bit after two 3dmark runs.
Toss3 said:
We need someone to run consecutive 3dmark runs on the exynos in order to know whether the gpu throttles or not, and if so after how many runs. We already know neither will throttle the cpu in geekbench, but the SD820 throttles the gpu a bit after two 3dmark runs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes we should await further testing. Since the SD is released in America for some already, the benchmarks for exynos are hard to find.
Toss3 said:
What is your basis for these arguments? Seems like most people in this thread are just making stuff up without quoting any real-world tests. Even Anandtech stated that the SoCs are pretty much equal (as far as they currently know, and they have already written pretty extensively about both SoCs), and that efficiency is what is going to set them apart. I wouldn't draw any conclusions without actually reading a comprehensive comparison of the two.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pulling this from past experience with exynos 7420 kernel development, and every article ive read on the 820 and the exynos 8890, in addition to benchmarks on both and my own device. Qualcomm leads the world in modem technology. The one in the 820 supposedly has achieved parity with wifi. In addition we have the hexagon DSP and spectra ISP all of which can operate in a sort of HMP configuration to accelerate tasks. I would find it hard to believe that Samsung has caught up to qcom in these misc blocks of the SOC. But that's why I said most likely for that portion as I'm just making an educated guess. Single threaded performance is quantifiably higher on the snapdragon, all the benchmarks shows this, just as they show that the 8 core exynos scores higher in multithreaded scenarios. The rest about development etc is because Samsung doesn't release the proprietary hardware blobs we need to get a proper aosp/cm port working. Meaning we have to write them from scratch which takes forever. Qcom has always provided these in the past. The GPU also performs better in benchmarks, whether there's a noticeable difference in real life remains to be seen, still from all evidence the snapdragon beats out the exynos GPU. And my experience with the 7420 taught me that the small cores can have trouble keeping the ui smooth at all times, and we see the same cluster again on the exynos, only on a slightly improved node. Hopefully this explains the logic behind my post better.
Xileforce said:
I'm pulling this from past experience with exynos 7420 kernel development, and every article ive read on the 820 and the exynos 8890, in addition to benchmarks on both and my own device. Qualcomm leads the world in modem technology. The one in the 820 supposedly has achieved parity with wifi. In addition we have the hexagon DSP and spectra ISP all of which can operate in a sort of HMP configuration to accelerate tasks. I would find it hard to believe that Samsung has caught up to qcom in these misc blocks of the SOC. But that's why I said most likely for that portion as I'm just making an educated guess. Single threaded performance is quantifiably higher on the snapdragon, all the benchmarks shows this, just as they show that the 8 core exynos scores higher in multithreaded scenarios. The rest about development etc is because Samsung doesn't release the proprietary hardware blobs we need to get a proper aosp/cm port working. Meaning we have to write them from scratch which takes forever. Qcom has always provided these in the past. The GPU also performs better in benchmarks, whether there's a noticeable difference in real life remains to be seen, still from all evidence the snapdragon beats out the exynos GPU. And my experience with the 7420 taught me that the small cores can have trouble keeping the ui smooth at all times, and we see the same cluster again on the exynos, only on a slightly improved node. Hopefully this explains the logic behind my post better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could very well be that the sd820 endas up faster than the exynos 8890 in day to day tasks, but the sd820 seems to be using a lot of mW in comparison to other SoCs(check anandtech's look at the mi-5). Its single thread performance is better, but on average there's only a 10% difference and the exynos is clocked lower than reference (2.7ghz and 2.4ghz). Both modems achieve the same speeds so the only thing that is going to matter in the end is efficiency. Still need to take a look at the GPU throttling on the 8890, as we only know the sd820 GPU throttles at this point in time. Personally I would have preferred the sd820, but if the 8899 brings better battery and better audio quality the difference in performance is worth it. Looking forward to anandtech's in-depth comparison! Don't really get why we haven't seen any reviews yet even though people have the phones already.
Toss3 said:
Could very well be that the sd820 endas up faster than the exynos 8890 in day to day tasks, but the sd820 seems to be using a lot of mW in comparison to other SoCs(check anandtech's look at the mi-5). Its single thread performance is better, but on average there's only a 10% difference and the exynos is clocked lower than reference (2.7ghz and 2.4ghz). Both modems achieve the same speeds so the only thing that is going to matter in the end is efficiency. Still need to take a look at the GPU throttling on the 8890, as we only know the sd820 GPU throttles at this point in time. Personally I would have preferred the sd820, but if the 8899 brings better battery and better audio quality the difference in performance is worth it. Looking forward to anandtech's in-depth comparison! Don't really get why we haven't seen any reviews yet even though people have the phones already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also awaiting the deep dive on both. Keep in mind though, that 2 of the 820s cores are clocked at 1.6 and have less l2cache to save power, and 2 of them are at 2.2ghz, so clock for clock they have very high performance. As for the power draw comparison, it was only an estimate to begin with, and ones got 4 little and 4 small and if it was only using the 4 small during the test that alone would be a noticeable power draw difference. It gets pretty complex with these big.little setups. I've also noticed the snapdragon version has a pretty high load average which should be able to get lowered with some modifications to the kernel.
AhsanU said:
I just pulled the trigger on an Exynos version, despite living in the U.S.
Reasons you might consider the Exynos over the SD820:
1) LTE Bands, the Exynos version has far more LTE Bands for use around the world. If you travel around a bit, then it makes a bit of sense to have a phone that can receive data, regardless of the network you're on.
2) Battery drain: it looks like both SoC's are plagued with one thing or another that saps battery life, but the SD820 has an alarming amount of drain from the Android system. It still has great SoT (screen on time), but it's still a worry nonetheless.
3) Carrier lock: If you find yourself on one network, then this shouldn't be an issue. But within the past 2 years, I have been on a AT&T, then a business T-Mobile line, then Google Fi, and now on an AT&T business line. If the phone locks to a carrier, then you might have to wait longer or pay to get it unlocked.. which can be a drag.
That being said, I'm sure the development for the SD820 version will be immense. However, I'm coming from a Nexus 6P, and feel like the stock S7E ROM performs so well, that I won't need to root or anything. Android has reached a level of smoothness that was not found on earlier versions, especially in tandem with TouchWiz of old (older Notes and S phones were laggy, really). So stock ROM with the ability to use Android Pay/Samsung Pay will be nice.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup my SD820 is running full on SPay, Bluetooth, WIFI, NFC, Always On Display all without power saving mode and I get 8h SOT in 24h. Listening to a few posts of people beginning to learn the phones quirks within the first few days is not evidence of anything other than the phone being broken in. Spreading information like this gets people buying devices for unsubstantiated reasons. Please provide evidence if you're going to post stuff like this. You guys are just starting an echo chamber quoting each other with no evidence supporting your rumors.
cepheid46e2 said:
Yup my SD820 is running full on SPay, Bluetooth, WIFI, NFC, Always On Display all without power saving mode and I get 8h SOT in 24h. Listening to a few posts of people beginning to learn the phones quirks within the first few days is not evidence of anything other than the phone being broken in. Spreading information like this gets people buying devices for unsubstantiated reasons. Please provide evidence if you're going to post stuff like this. You guys are just starting an echo chamber quoting each other with no evidence supporting your rumors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never believe people when they say they get 8 hours of screen on time.
And if you read my post carefully, you'll see the fact that I stated the SD820 still has great SoT, but just that there are issues with the Android system draining an alarming amount of battery percentage. This is not some baseless claim, there are multiple posts in the battery life thread showing the android system taking up 35%< of the battery.
Edit:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=3321547
In case you were wondering which thread.
Again, it's just a strange thing that can maybe be fixed by a software update.
And while we're at it, how about you show screenshots of your supposed 8 hours of SoT?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk