Related
Hello All
I've just found this line in Eugenia's ROM thread:
"*- CPU scales to a maximum of 1GHz instead of 712MHz"
Is it true that the CPU is limited to 712MHz in the shipping ROMs?
If Yes this may explain the lower performance compared to ACER F1 and Toshiba TG01
I was wondering this too
This could do with some deeper investigation by the experts amongst us...
If this is true, I can imagine the HD2 FLYING when we have custom ROMs!
Mine is pretty damn fast with ROM 1.48!
it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..
fards said:
it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Suppose it is so, they did deliver a 1Ghz device, it's just limited for some reasons. First to my mind is battery life. Nevertheless, investigation is required and I hope kholk can clear some things for us since the seed was found in his thread.
fards said:
it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point exectly!
The only evidence we have for now is the line I quoted from Eugenia's soon to be released WM 6.5.3 ROM
But I've been thinking for a long time that the lower performance of the HD2 compared to other Snapdragon devices is due to some form of power management lowering the CPU frequence!
fards said:
it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"HD2 as 1ghz capable"', does not mean it is running at 1GHZ but it could run at that speed, altough implied, but indeed it would be a misleading advert campaign
but i would like some proof too
tnyynt said:
Suppose it is so, they did deliver a 1Ghz device, it's just limited for some reasons. First to my mind is battery life. Nevertheless, investigation is required and I hope kholk can clear some things for us since the seed was found in his thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The way its advertised means it would have to actually run at 1GHz, not just be a 1GHz model limited to less.
Unless its just a rubbish claim then i assume the ROM developer means limited to 712Mhz in certain situations, which might be for perfectly good reasons.
rovex said:
The way its advertised means it would have to actually run at 1GHz, not just be a 1GHz model limited to less.
Unless its just a rubbish claim then i assume the ROM developer means limited to 712Mhz in certain situations, which might be for perfectly good reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't agree: a software underclocked 1GHz CPU is still a 1GHz CPU. The chip is the same.
Not when the phone claims its a 1GHz CPU, which it does. The speed is not the name, its a physical attribute of the CPU that only exists if its actually running at that speed. This has been covered by EU law before, HTC cannot legally sell a phone running a CPU capable of 1GHz and claim its 1GHz if it never reaches that speed.
I suspect this ROM will just force full throttle all the time, which can only be bad for the battery life, but since we cannot flash it yet we dont know the effects, or if it even works at all.
HTC is advertising the HD2 machine as "1GHz capable device", but not as "1GHz device" that it's different.
It's barely legal.
Anyway, there IS evidence. And you can see it using TCPMP and doing some tests using the device's CPU
On this purpose, we've been talked on the xda-devs IRC channel about that, and I'm saying what I'm saying ONLY based on my tests: try to run TCPMP and see the CPU freq that it's reporting: 396-412MHz!
Use a program that is HEAVY on CPU load and run it in background (make sure that it won't close and that it will continue its work even in background) then see che CPU freq in TCPMP: you'll reach a maximum of 712MHz.
Another evidence of this statement is the performance of other SnapDragon machines like the Toshiba TG01.
P.S.: I think that the HTC HD2 will reach its 1024MHz frequency only when playing with the GLES2.0 Qualcomm test game, ELECTOPIA.
Electopia takes the device in EXCLUSIVE MODE, so it's possible that its frequency will be raised to 1GHz.
Its also quite possible that the CPU speed reporting programs do not support the snapdragon properly and report the wrong information.
The phone itself says the CPU speed is 1GHz in the phone hardware properties, this is a claim of speed, not name or theoretical capabilities.
So we're talking about dynamic freq adjustment on the go depending on processing power needed, similar to AMD's Cool and Quiet concept?
tnyynt said:
Suppose it is so, they did deliver a 1Ghz device, it's just limited for some reasons. First to my mind is battery life. Nevertheless, investigation is required and I hope kholk can clear some things for us since the seed was found in his thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
doesn't work like that does it though? they advertise the device running at 1ghz and it doesn't then that's false advertising..
If (and I doubt looking at the benchmarks) it ran at 700 ish mhz (maximum) then they should have advertised it as such
they don't mention "1ghz capable" here.. They clearly state its CPU processor Speed (not theoritical or otherwise) as
CPU Processing Speed
1GHz Snapdragon™ processor
http://www.htc.com/uk/product/hd2/specification.html
and Overview
HTC HD2 delivers an experience your senses have been waiting for. The unprecedented 4.3-inch pixel-packed display is stunning. The world’s first capacitive touch technology on a Windows® phone along with 1 GHz processing power ensure a smooth and lightning-fast response to the lightest touch of your finger
It's like stating it has a 4.3 inch screen and then actually finding it was 3.3 inches because the edge was covered in protective cover..
http://www.htc.com/uk/product/hd2/overview.html
not saying this is true at all.. we all know cpus have been scaling for a while, and the HD2 certainly scores high enough in integer testing..
but if that's what it is then they are likely to be in trouble over this.
anyway Kolhk you claim to have it able to scale up, how have you done that?
this way we can try to replicate it
rovex said:
Its also quite possible that the CPU speed reporting programs do not support the snapdragon properly and report the wrong information.
The phone itself says the CPU speed is 1GHz in the phone hardware properties, this is a claim of speed, not name or theoretical capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it reports the frequencies of other snapdragon devices correctly it shouldn't be an issue. And to they can't advertise the device as having a 1Ghz processor unless it runs at that speed(would it be ok for amd and intel to sell 4Ghz chips if they actually run at 2+Ghz, just because that would be their theoretical maximum?). The processor is probably, as mentioned earlier, just scaling back when it isn't used to 100%.
fards said:
they don't mention "1ghz capable" here.. They clearly state its CPU processor Speed (not theoritical or otherwise) as
CPU Processing Speed
1GHz Snapdragon™ processor
http://www.htc.com/uk/product/hd2/specification.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...and I bet if there's a text on the chip inside the device, it states the same on it. As far as I see things, HTC has a device with a 1G Snapdragon CPU which I bought. CPU inside, as described.
Toss3 said:
If it reports the frequencies of other snapdragon devices correctly it shouldn't be an issue. And to they can't advertise the device as having a 1Ghz processor unless it runs at that speed(would it be ok for amd and intel to sell 4Ghz chips if they actually run at 2+Ghz, just because that would be their theoretical maximum?). The processor is probably, as mentioned earlier, just scaling back when it isn't used to 100%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually AMD sells processors like this: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ which actually runs at 1800.
A CPU speed programs needs to support the way the CPU is actually controlled, not just the CPU, so basically the clock generator as well. If The HD2 uses a different method from the F1 or TG-01 then the program wont work.
First the G2, now the Lexicon:
http://phandroid.com/2010/09/20/htc-lexikon-looks-to-be-next-verizon-droid/
Sure the clock speed is lower, but reports are saying that the processor is actually faster. And the battery usage will probably be a lot better too.
I'm a sucker for performance and have always said I'd stick with the N1 until the next CPUs come out. Finally... Has the next era in mobile CPU's finally begun?
Next era, no. 1.5+single cores, then dual core.
Paul22000 said:
First the G2, now the Lexicon:
http://phandroid.com/2010/09/20/htc-lexikon-looks-to-be-next-verizon-droid/
Sure the clock speed is lower, but reports are saying that the processor is actually faster. And the battery usage will probably be a lot better too.
I'm a sucker for performance and have always said I'd stick with the N1 until the next CPUs come out. Finally... Has the next era in mobile CPU's finally begun?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's faster 'cause the gpu is a logically separate device. I expect linpacks to be somewhat slower, but quadrants to be faster. How's it going?
"Next era"? No. 7x30 isn't a direct successor to 8x50, having the same CPU but different GPU and some other internal differences (for example, LPDDR2 support appears on Github). Just read Qualcomm's own product description:
http://www.qualcomm.com/products_services/chipsets/snapdragon.html
It's called "second generation" because of HSPA+, much better GPU, 45nm process, additional video codecs support, newer GPS, and some other bits and pieces. It's an overall better device. But if you count only the CPU area - it loses to Nexus. Same CPU, clocked lower. 8x55 is equal in CPU power.
If you're looking for the real next generation in power - look for 3rd generation devices, with dual core CPUs.
Jack_R1 said:
"Next era"? No. 7x30 isn't a direct successor to 8x50, having the same CPU but different GPU and some other internal differences (for example, LPDDR2 support appears on Github). Just read Qualcomm's own product description:
http://www.qualcomm.com/products_services/chipsets/snapdragon.html
It's called "second generation" because of HSPA+, much better GPU, 45nm process, additional video codecs support, newer GPS, and some other bits and pieces. It's an overall better device. But if you count only the CPU area - it loses to Nexus. Same CPU, clocked lower. 8x55 is equal in CPU power.
If you're looking for the real next generation in power - look for 3rd generation devices, with dual core CPUs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1. I concur 100% with what he said.
keep in mind that pure clock speed does not mean something is faster... the 45nm die shrink also means they increased efficiency in a lot of areas and have allowed for more cache on the die...
think of it this way, i built a dual core PC back in 2006 that ran at 2.8ghz but it was like 90nm tech... if i buy a new dual core today, with a 45nm tech but same speed it would blow the old proc out of the water...
I really doubt dual core procs in phones will make a huge leap like everyone is expecting... I mean, how often do you run 4-5 apps simultaneously that are all very stressful on the CPU? the two most stressful things you prolly do on your phone is watch a movie (encoding video is stressful) or play a video game like on your PSX emulator... do you ever watch a movie and play a game at the same time? Stupid question right... the basic everyday performances are not going to see any huge improvements like everyone expects...
if they want to improve phones they should stick to single core and have a dedicated gpu or go dual and prioritize one of the cores to graphical processing...
oh i forgot to mention the only way you will see strong software performance improvements from dual core is if Google rewrites virtually the entire code for Android to make use of multiple cores... so while your phone might be dual core, your OS wont care since it virtually cannot use it correctly... better pray the manufacturer updates the OS for you cuz the N1 is single core and guess whos getting all the updates for the next year or so?
Pure clock speed on exactly the same CPU is directly correlated with CPU speed. Yes, there are some things that impact benchmarks like memory bandwidth etc, but we're not talking about them - and even if we did, the difference still wouldn't cover. 65nm vs 45nm means NOTHING - it doesn't matter, what process the CPU was built on, it matters how it functions. We're talking about EXACTLY THE SAME CPU, can you keep that in mind, please? Thanks. CPU cache almost doesn't matter, since L1 is limited anyway, and L2 is big enough anyway, the increases add a bare couple of percents to CPU speed, which is nothing compared to 20% speed loss due to clocking.
Thanks for your smart suggestions on "improving phones". I guess you might be one of the VPs at Qualcomm. Or maybe you aren't. I'll skip your even smarter comments about "dedicated GPU" etc. I guess you probably need to google the word "SoC" first and see what it means.
And you should probably educate yourself about multi-threaded applications, and also remember that Linux kernel (which is running on Android) is built to support multiple cores, and Dalvik VM (which is running the apps) might very well be multi-threaded too.
Adding a second core with load balancing OS results in ~35-40% performance increase (depends on some things). And ironically, when you compare "your old 90nm core" and "newer 45nm cores", saying that the newer cores clocked similarly "would blow the old out of the water", you're actually comparing multi-core vs single-core CPUs (with some internal speed-ups, too, but the most significant performance boost comes from additional cores).
Jack_R1 said:
65nm vs 45nm means NOTHING
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the 45nm process at least have better efficiency due to smaller gates?
I was reading today in some tech blogs that the SGS2 will no longer have the special dual core cpu samsung made, and is instead using an ARM A9 Single Core Processor @ 1.2GHz.
I remember seeing in the source code for the i9000 the code for overclocking their cpu's to 1.2GHz. Seems like at the time it was just a work in progress for them good thing for us our developers utilized it to OC to 1.7GHz.
But maybe the dual core really aren't ready for mass production, since I bet their potential is much higher than 1.2
Delgoth said:
I was reading today in some tech blogs that the SGS2 will no longer have the special dual core cpu samsung made, and is instead using an ARM A9 Single Core Processor @ 1.2GHz.
I remember seeing in the source code for the i9000 the code for overclocking their cpu's to 1.2GHz. Seems like at the time it was just a work in progress for them good thing for us our developers utilized it to OC to 1.7GHz.
But maybe the dual core really aren't ready for mass production, since I bet their potential is much higher than 1.2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you read that it's a single core? I'm quite sure I've read that it's supposed to be a dual core at 1.2 GHz.
I read the article in eWeek.
http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-...-Not-Yet-Shipping-But-Already-Updated-468941/
It cites Samsung's Estonia Office as posting the confirmed news.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the source quotes GSM Arena. Their article clearly states that it is a 1.2 GHz dual-core Cortex-A9 CPU.
Google the following (I can't yet post links): gsmarena.com/samsung_i9100_galaxy_s_ii_dualcore_cpu_will_run_at_12_ghz-news-2491.php
That article doesn't say it will be single core, it just says that it will be upgraded to 1.2 ghz instead of just one. The fact that it is still going to be dual core however, was implied. I can see how you were confused.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Delgoth said:
I read the article in eWeek.
http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-...-Not-Yet-Shipping-But-Already-Updated-468941/
It cites Samsung's Estonia Office as posting the confirmed news.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't really say it's a single core though, do they? It might sound like they meant a single core with "but a 1.2GHz A9 instead", but I'm sure they'd mention single core if that was the case. And also: "the switch will boost the Galaxy S II 'to the top of the Cortex-A9 class, in pure computing power.'", to me that doesn't really sound like a downgrade.
Correct, more than likely they will use Dual Core.
They have the Atrix, Optimus 2X, HTC Sensation (Pyramid) & the iPhone 5 to compete with. They made a huge deal about their SoC 1 Ghz Dual Core, this will not be a single core bumped to 1.2Ghz.
So this flagship phone will lost to the SGS2 mini which clock at 1.4ghz single core? doesn't make sense to me...
http://techie-buzz.com/mobile-news/samsung-galaxy-s-2-mini-specifications-leaked.html
So I guess I read that article a bit too quickly. My bad. But they've still been working on getting the ARM CPU's to 1.2 for awhile though.
Which processow will be better, Exynos 5 Octa or A simple Snapdragon 600 quad?
In my POV, Octa will be useless since it will be a battery hog and no apps really use that much cores and power. The S600 will be more efficient for day-to-day use since it consumes less power and will actually be used.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Sent from a dark and unknown place
Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 P3100
I thought the s4 had the same processor as the One, but it was clocked to 1.9? I could be wrong. I wasn't really paying attention.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
I'd imagine this thread will get closed.
In the meantime, read this thread and then make a judgement because the "it uses more power so it sucks" mentality is just simply incorrect.
[Info] Exynos Octa and why you need to stop the drama about the 8 cores
AndreiLux said:
Misconception #1: Samsung didn't design this, ARM did. This is not some stupid marketing gimmick.
Misconception #2: You DON'T need to have all 8 cores online, actually, only maximum 4 cores will ever be online at the same time.
Misconception #3: If the workload is thread-light, just as we did hot-plugging on previous CPUs, big.LITTLE pairs will simply remain offline under such light loads. There is no wasted power with power-gating.
Misconception #4: As mentioned, each pair can switch independently of other pairs. It's not he whole cluster who switches between A15 and A7 cores. You can have only a single A15 online, together with two A7's, while the fourth pair is completely offline.
Misconception #5: The two clusters have their own frequency planes. This means A15 cores all run on one frequency while the A7 cores can be running on another. However, inside of the frequency planes, all cores run at the same frequency, meaning there is only one frequency for all cores of a type at a time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Addition: I am not a Samsung fanboy by any means, however, the amount of incorrect information floating around about both of these flagships is starting to get annoying.
2nd addition: Read this as well, the big.LITTLE technology being used in the Octa is pretty amazing: big.LITTLE Processing
I hope that the overclocking or higher clock rate doesn't produce Moment-esque results.
Alsybub said:
I thought the s4 had the same processor as the One, but it was clocked to 1.9? I could be wrong. I wasn't really paying attention.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the US that is true, they are both S600's, with the S4 having a .2ghz higher clockspeed. Many of the other S4's will have the Octa Exynos chip.
crawlgsx said:
In the US that is true, they are both S600's, with the S4 having a .2ghz higher clockspeed. Many of the other S4's will have the Octa Exynos chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah. I see. Different hardware for different regions. Like the One X.
Even though it's eight cores it is probably complete overkill. Yet another bigger number to put on marketing. How many apps will actually use that? How many apps use four cores at the moment?
There have been some articles about multiple cores being more for point of sale than for the end user. Even if you're signing up for a contract right now I doubt that much would be making use of it in two years time. So, the future proofing argument is moot.
It'll be interesting to see. Of course the galaxy builds of Android will use the cores. With things like the stay awake feature and pip it is useful. Outside of the OS I can't see it being necessary.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk HD
The "octa" core processor is complete bullsh*t. Imo, 2/4 cores are perfectly fine as long as they optimize it and perfect the hardware, why stack 8 cores when only 4 work at one time and no app will use all that power.
They should've focused on design to make it look less like a toy phone and use better finish, instead.
Oh the marketing..
Not HTC or whatever fanboy, just stating my opinion.
rotchcrocket04 said:
I'd imagine this thread will get closed.
In the meantime, read this thread and then make a judgement because the "it uses more power so it sucks" mentality is just simply incorrect.
[Info] Exynos Octa and why you need to stop the drama about the 8 cores
Addition: I am not a Samsung fanboy by any means, however, the amount of incorrect information floating around about both of these flagships is starting to get annoying.
2nd addition: Read this as well, the big.LITTLE technology being used in the Octa is pretty amazing: big.LITTLE Processing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very good read, thanks for taking the time to post it. Surprised no-one has mentioned that we need this in our Ones. Would certainly help with the battery.
Saying its a 8 core cpu is marketing simply put.
Like it has been said only 4 out of 8 cores will only ever be enabled at once max.
The GPU on the Octa might be better then the Adreno 320 but its have to wait for benchmarks.
Nekromantik said:
Saying its a 8 core cpu is marketing simply put.
Like it has been said only 4 out of 8 cores will only ever be enabled at once max.
The GPU on the Octa might be better then the Adreno 320 but its have to wait for benchmarks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Benchmarks show adreno320 keeps up nicely. You won't see any real world differences besides a slightly lower benchmark score
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191834
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
Squirrel1620 said:
Benchmarks show adreno320 keeps up nicely. You won't see any real world differences besides a slightly lower benchmark score
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191834
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are from the S600 version.
Higher clock speed and Android 4.2 will mean its slightly ahead.
No benchmarks from the Octa version yet.
Nekromantik said:
Those are from the S600 version.
Higher clock speed and Android 4.2 will mean its slightly ahead.
No benchmarks from the Octa version yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll just stick with the one and wait for the 4.2 update. By then we should have custom kernels to overclock ourselves
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
Here you go
Nekromantik said:
Saying its a 8 core cpu is marketing simply put.
Like it has been said only 4 out of 8 cores will only ever be enabled at once max.
The GPU on the Octa might be better then the Adreno 320 but its have to wait for benchmarks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Octa" is not gimmicky or for marketing.
Octa is the name of the SoC, and how it was named is nothing wrong
There are 3 implementations can be used, and one with maximum 8 cores running at the same time.
GS4 doesn't use that impletations, but it does not mean the SoC cannot be "Octa". You have a house with 8 rooms but you know to open or you wanna open 4 rooms only, the house is still an 8-room house.
hung2900 said:
"Octa" is not gimmicky or for marketing.
Octa is the name of the SoC, and how it was named is nothing wrong
There are 3 implementations can be used, and one with maximum 8 cores running at the same time.
GS4 doesn't use that impletations, but it does not mean the SoC cannot be "Octa". You have a house with 8 rooms but you know to open or you wanna open 4 rooms only, the house is still an 8-room house.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you know all 8 can run at the same time? Has Samsung demonstrated that already? Any links?
Also what would be the speed if all 8 are running at the same time?
Also did you see that an Intel dual core @2GHz beat the Exynos Octa in benchmarks!!! So all 8 cores running at slower speed might not be very good actually. It might even slow down things even more...
We recently demonstrated a dual core running at 3GHz at MWC in Barcelona. That chip was able to load games at crazy speeds. A game that took 15s to load on existing Exynos Quad core was loading in just 6s with our chip!
joslicx said:
We recently demonstrated a dual core running at 3GHz at MWC in Barcelona. That chip was able to load games at crazy speeds. A game that took 15s to load on existing Exynos Quad core was loading in just 6s with our chip!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
. And used 3 times the energy to do it... Was that tested at all?
backfromthestorm said:
. And used 3 times the energy to do it... Was that tested at all?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its all about bragging rights really. Same as Samsung is doing with regards to Octa.
The the chip that could run at 3GHz could also very well run at 1GHz at just 0.6V (so consuming far lesser power than anything else in the market). A dual core at 1GHz is still good enough for all mundane tasks like playing videos or internet browsing etc. So in practice it would have been a very efficient solution. It was a real innovation really. Sadly the company did not have money to pour more funds into the program and has shut it.
It was demonstrated at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona in february this year.
Anyway point is, we did not need extra set of power efficient cores like Samsung is doing. We ran the same cores that could do crazy high speeds and even crazier power efficient mode! Thats a very neat solution.
Heres a press link: http://www.itproportal.com/2013/02/25/mwc-2013-exclusive-dual-core-st-ericsson-novathor-l8580-soc-crushes-competition-benchmarks/
To quote the article:
A continuous running test monitored by an infra-red reader showed that the 3GHz prototype smartphone remained cooler as it uses less energy and in some scenarios, it could add up to five hours battery life in a normal usage scenario
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hung2900 said:
"Octa" is not gimmicky or for marketing.
Octa is the name of the SoC, and how it was named is nothing wrong
There are 3 implementations can be used, and one with maximum 8 cores running at the same time.
GS4 doesn't use that impletations, but it does not mean the SoC cannot be "Octa". You have a house with 8 rooms but you know to open or you wanna open 4 rooms only, the house is still an 8-room house.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no. At least not in my opinion. Octacore means 8 cpu cores on one cpu-chip.
I would see it like this:
You have 2 houses on your lawn which are beside each other. Every house has 4 rooms. You have to switch houses to open up the rooms. Just like the Exynos "Octa" has to, since it cannot run both CPU's at the same time.
If you are in a house with 8 rooms, you cannot simply be in all 8 rooms at once. You can connect the open doors between all the rooms, and since your in that house, you can freely walk in every room. But not with that implementation.
I wouldn't call the Exynos "Octa" an Octacore, its a dual CPU system with a 2x4 cores, with the difference that regular desktop dual CPU systems can use both CPU units at once, but not like the Exynos "Octa". Still, dual quad system comes closer than a pure octacore system.
This is kind of a hybrid. Nice technology for a mobile device, but at the same time, kind of unneeded / inefficient, compared to regular quadcore systems. Even the Tegra 3 system with 4 active cores and 1 companion core for standby tasks seems more efficient (in terms of "used space" and ressources).
Ah well let's see how the supposed and so called "octacore" will score in the future...
processor differences
okay I know both processor are snapdragon 600's but why is the galaxy S4's processor clocked at 1.9 ghz and the HTC One's processor is clocked at 1.7 ghz is it just an instance of samsung overclocking the s600 or are they different variations of the same processor, I have done some research and am able to find no clear answer to this question even on the snapdragon website????????
dawg00201 said:
okay I know both processor are snapdragon 600's but why is the galaxy S4's processor clocked at 1.9 ghz and the HTC One's processor is clocked at 1.7 ghz is it just an instance of samsung overclocking the s600 or are they different variations of the same processor, I have done some research and am able to find no clear answer to this question even on the snapdragon website????????
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They should be identical. I think its just a manufacturer choice. But it could also be associated to termals or battery.
Cause Samsung took the higher frequency chips, there is the possibility that they also get the "better" chips: Lower Voltage for the same frequency. But thats just an assumption.
hi
i am new but i cant find a way for see the firtst 1,5 ghz cores work....all cpu app i can find see me only work the last 4 core with 1,2 ghz...
please help me unlock the firt 4 core are everytime stopped thnx for help
Those kick in only when you are doing something "hard" in that time. Like benchmarking in background.
SoNic67 said:
Those kick in only when you are doing something "hard" in that time. Like benchmarking in background.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i try run all test and i dont see one time the big core work, they are stopped every time...( try pc mark but dont work he crash after 4k encoding video) with kernel auiditior i can active all 8 core...now they work everytime and i can set governor for each processor...
but other app like cpuz dont find the first processor they see only the last 4 core... ok maybe with bench i can see all cores work but is very hard find a way for check the correct work for governor and the phone processor work fine....
if u dont have root cpu app dont find any governor...or see only one processor...
Those are limitations of the apps themselves or your OS.
I have the official N (rooted with ElementalX) and CPU-Z sees all the cores.
Also there are never supposed to work all 8 in the same time, only a group/cluster of 4 at one time, it is not a straight-up 8 core CPU. They are not "equal" in respect of performance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE
Different combinations of Governors and Schedulers produce different results.
PS: The newer Snapdragon 625, that is present in G5 Plus, is listed as a true 8 core: https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/processors/625
The 617 is a big.LITTLE octa-core, not a true 8-core CPU such as the 625, like @SoNic67 said. The 617 has one cluster running up to 1.5-1.6 GHz (depending on the kernel), and one cluster that generally runs from 500 MHz-1200 MHz.
The little cluster, or the 500-1200 MHz cluster, is fine for basic tasks, such as UI, scrolling, etc. However, in games, all cores will online (or at least that's the point). Some apps are not threaded for 8 cores and thus will not utilize, or need, 8 cores.
Also, in reality, the 4 "big" cores make very little difference in terms of performance. I did 2 benches in another thread, where Antutu came up 40K with 4 cores and 45k with 8 cores. Although this seems like a large performance decrease, without the big cores the phone was cool, still ran quick, and drained far less battery.
Finally, having 8 cores also can introduce performance deficits as well, especially if your hotplug is inefficient (there may be delays in turning on cores, resulting in UI jank). I thus recommend simply leaving them off- better battery, cooling, and still decent performance.
thx for support and continue OS is amazing gw.
negusp said:
The 617 is a big.LITTLE octa-core, not a true 8-core CPU such as the 625, like @SoNic67 said. The 617 has one cluster running up to 1.5-1.6 GHz (depending on the kernel), and one cluster that generally runs from 500 MHz-1200 MHz.
The little cluster, or the 500-1200 MHz cluster, is fine for basic tasks, such as UI, scrolling, etc. However, in games, all cores will online (or at least that's the point). Some apps are not threaded for 8 cores and thus will not utilize, or need, 8 cores.
Also, in reality, the 4 "big" cores make very little difference in terms of performance. I did 2 benches in another thread, where Antutu came up 40K with 4 cores and 45k with 8 cores. Although this seems like a large performance decrease, without the big cores the phone was cool, still ran quick, and drained far less battery.
Finally, having 8 cores also can introduce performance deficits as well, especially if your hotplug is inefficient (there may be delays in turning on cores, resulting in UI jank). I thus recommend simply leaving them off- better battery, cooling, and still decent performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse