Related
I own this 2 beast and I also quit confusing to compare this smartphone which is the best one. I like the speed of O2X, but dislike it ui or interface if compare to DHD htc sense. I also like DHD aluminum body more than O2X plastic. So, what do you think guys? which one is better?
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
Any one? just to know your opinion.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
is there a massive speed difference?
Well the biggest difference is probably that Dual Core processor of the O2X (2 x 1GHz) while the DHD only has a single core (also 1GHz).
The main camera is similar, but the O2X is capable of 1080p video recording AND additionally has a front faced camera for video calls.
It has also got more internal storage (8GB) and a slightly better battery (1500 mAH)
So yeah, I would say that the O2X is better than the DHD.
frosty_ice said:
Well the biggest difference is probably that Dual Core processor of the O2X (2 x 1GHz) while the DHD only has a single core (also 1GHz).
The main camera is similar, but the O2X is capable of 1080p video recording AND additionally has a front faced camera for video calls.
It has also got more internal storage (8GB) and a slightly better battery (1500 mAH)
So yeah, I would say that the O2X is better than the DHD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeh but it has an extremely buggy ui. the speed test show it beats the dhd in web browsing by 1-2 seconds. also some benchmark test show the dhd scoring higher.
also the dualcore phones dont have 2x 1GHz cpu... the total speed is 1ghz
so its (2x 500mhz) this is more efficient than single core.
olyloh6696 said:
also the dualcore phones dont have 2x 1GHz cpu... the total speed is 1ghz
so its (2x 500mhz) this is more efficient than single core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Say what?!
A 1ghz dual core processor is not 2 processors running at 500mhz!!! It is a single CPU with 2 cores capable of processing separate threads. It runs at 1ghz and technically it is like 2 1ghz processors operating in tandem.
Shoot whoever is spreading the above misinformation lol.
Regards.
lynxboy said:
Say what?!
A 1ghz dual core processor is not 2 processors running at 500mhz!!! It is a single CPU with 2 cores capable of processing separate threads. It runs at 1ghz and technically it is like 2 1ghz processors operating in tandem.
Shoot whoever is spreading the above misinformation lol.
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure?? I have read everywhere it is 500mhz!! Othwise why do manufactureas say it is a 1.2ghz dualcore phone?! Why dont they say it is a 2.4ghz phone? I think you may be wrong
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
olyloh6696 said:
Are you sure?? I have read everywhere it is 500mhz!! Othwise why do manufactureas say it is a 1.2ghz dualcore phone?! Why dont they say it is a 2.4ghz phone? I think you may be wrong
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He is definitely right.
You can't just add the speeds of two seperate cores up. The dual core runs at 2 @ 1Ghz. That's like two seperate CPUs, each with a clock speed of 1Ghz. So it is NOT 2 Ghz CPU but rather 2 processors @ 1Ghz. It may sound similar, but it makes a huge difference (for further detail you should look into how a processor works and what threads are).
frosty_ice said:
He is definitely right.
You can't just add the speeds of two seperate cores up. The dual core runs at 2 @ 1Ghz. That's like two seperate CPUs, each with a clock speed of 1Ghz. So it is NOT 2 Ghz CPU but rather 2 processors @ 1Ghz. It may sound similar, but it makes a huge difference (for further detail you should look into how a processor works and what threads are).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats explain alot why bench mark for stock rom O2X is 2689 and DHD only around 1545.
thanks guys for your info, keep it coming.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
frosty_ice said:
He is definitely right.
You can't just add the speeds of two seperate cores up. The dual core runs at 2 @ 1Ghz. That's like two seperate CPUs, each with a clock speed of 1Ghz. So it is NOT 2 Ghz CPU but rather 2 processors @ 1Ghz. It may sound similar, but it makes a huge difference (for further detail you should look into how a processor works and what threads are).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so i'm right?
olyloh6696 said:
so i'm right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, lynx is The O2X CPU runs at 1Ghz per core.
olyloh6696 said:
so i'm right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just google about dual core vs single core.
You will find info where dual core freq is same as single core. The only different is that dual core is way better when doing multitasking (avoid hang or jitter) and not to say double speed but can say nearly double speed.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
frosty_ice said:
No, lynx is The O2X CPU runs at 1Ghz per core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks, but why does it say for ecample that the htc sensation runs at 1.2 ghz? If they want to be more impressive, why dont they just say its running at 2.4 ghz?
Ok guys, it is clearly in term of hardware O2X is the winner. But how about its ui? software? And its unibody design? any opinion i do appreciate.
Thanks.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
Im not an expert but correct me if im wrong.
1 CPU with 2 core. Each core have 1 ghz freq. 1 core to do 1 task, another core to do another task. Meaning freq each core still 1 ghz but since its have dual core it can do both task at the same time. More quick than a single core. If we compare to single core with 2 ghz, it can only do task 1 at a time. In term of speed i think dual core 1 ghz should be nearly the same as 1 core 2 ghz. I also read some where saying single core 2 ghz consume more power than dual core 1 ghz.
Just my 2 cent.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
Dual Core Processors
olyloh6696 said:
Are you sure?? I have read everywhere it is 500mhz!! Othwise why do manufactureas say it is a 1.2ghz dualcore phone?! Why dont they say it is a 2.4ghz phone? I think you may be wrong
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
olyloh6696 said:
thanks, but why does it say for ecample that the htc sensation runs at 1.2 ghz? If they want to be more impressive, why dont they just say its running at 2.4 ghz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm 100% sure. Here's a brief history of multi core processors for those who are interested.
In the late 90's and early 000's, processor speed was constantly on the rise. Manufacturers were trying to out-do each other in regards to who had the fastest clock speed.
The way clock speed increases is by actually shrinking the microarchitecture (Semi-Conductors) of the processor, which leads to faster data transfer/processing rates. There was a pattern involved where each new generation of chip architecture yielded almost twice the clock speed of the past generation. However, as processor architecture grew smaller and smaller, eventually we approached a stage where physically, using current materials and manufacturing processes, a limit had been reached. It wasn't possible to continue shrinking the size of the processor, so logically, the next step was to integrate multiple cores on a single chip. This was the birth of the multicore processor.
The way a multicore processor works is by utilising multiple processor cores on a single chip. This way, instead of a higher clock speed, you have multiple cores running at the same speed, 'sharing' the workload. So, a 1ghz Dual Core Processor is a single chip, with 2 cores both clocked at 1ghz. A 3ghz Quad Core Processor is a single chip, with 4 cores all clocked at 3ghz.
This all sounds wonderful, but for a multicore processor to be used efficiently, it requires software to be multithreaded. This is where you have to question the use of dual core processors in smartphones, as none of the applications or the OS utilise multiple threads! So really, as it stands, you'll struggle to see truly improved performance from dual core handsets.
This will all change in the future. Android 2.4 will support dual cores by default and I'm guessing most software will start to aswell.
Anway, hope this was interesting for those wondering how dual core processors work and about clock speed etc.
Regards.
Well i have both phones now... i missed the sence weather and clock from DHD but fancy widget fixed that. O2x still has a few bugs ie black screen and auto reboots but i only had 1 bs a 2 reboots in 2 weeks now . games work better on o2x also with normal lock screen o2x is snapper all over at stock than a oc to 1.2 ghz DHD but the best part is the real HDMI out (no need for a ps3) but i will keep both phones
olyloh6696 said:
thanks, but why does it say for ecample that the htc sensation runs at 1.2 ghz? If they want to be more impressive, why dont they just say its running at 2.4 ghz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because they would be lying. If I have two towers each being 50m tall I can't advertise that I'm selling a 100m tower because I'm not.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA App
lynxboy said:
I'm 100% sure. Here's a brief history of multi core processors for those who are interested.
In the late 90's and early 000's, processor speed was constantly on the rise. Manufacturers were trying to out-do each other in regards to who had the fastest clock speed.
The way clock speed increases is by actually shrinking the microarchitecture (Semi-Conductors) of the processor, which leads to faster data transfer/processing rates. There was a pattern involved where each new generation of chip architecture yielded almost twice the clock speed of the past generation. However, as processor architecture grew smaller and smaller, eventually we approached a stage where physically, using current materials and manufacturing processes, a limit had been reached. It wasn't possible to continue shrinking the size of the processor, so logically, the next step was to integrate multiple cores on a single chip. This was the birth of the multicore processor.
The way a multicore processor works is by utilising multiple processor cores on a single chip. This way, instead of a higher clock speed, you have multiple cores running at the same speed, 'sharing' the workload. So, a 1ghz Dual Core Processor is a single chip, with 2 cores both clocked at 1ghz. A 3ghz Quad Core Processor is a single chip, with 4 cores all clocked at 3ghz.
This all sounds wonderful, but for a multicore processor to be used efficiently, it requires software to be multithreaded. This is where you have to question the use of dual core processors in smartphones, as none of the applications or the OS utilise multiple threads! So really, as it stands, you'll struggle to see truly improved performance from dual core handsets.
This will all change in the future. Android 2.4 will support dual cores by default and I'm guessing most software will start to aswell.
Anway, hope this was interesting for those wondering how dual core processors work and about clock speed etc.
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for that! it helped me understand it abit more, cheers
but isnt the nexus s the developers phone? so android 2.4 must not just require dual core as the nexus s will be getting the 2.4 update?
letom said:
Because they would be lying. If I have two towers each being 50m tall I can't advertise that I'm selling a 100m tower because I'm not.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i see you logic now
but you could say in total you have 100m tower? so could you say i have a 2.4 ghz clocked phone?
So I've been noticing somethin strange other then the experia z every single other high end device that will come out as of 2013 will be using a 1.7GHZ snapdragon the only high end device that will use a lower one is experia z why????? I mean the phone hasn't come out yet can't they just put the 1.7GHZ instead? why use a lower one 1.5GHZ from phones of the fourth quarter of 2012 its old tech!!!
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
Calm down man, 1.5GHz quadcore is good for Android. Android really doesn't need such a high speeds
And CPU clock doesn't mean smoother device
Sent from my LT26i using xda app-developers app
1.5Ghz Quad Core is not "only". And they all use exactly the same CPU which operates with 1,5-1,7Ghz speed. Clock speed isn't everything. Look at the iPhone - it uses dual core 1.2Ghz CPU - yet its performance is 5 times smoother than most quad core devices...
Dual core is more than enough for anything a smartphone might need to do - as long as you put good software on it.
gabrielpina4 said:
So I've been noticing somethin strange other then the experia z every single other high end device that will come out as of 2013 will be using a 1.7GHZ snapdragon the only high end device that will use a lower one is experia z why????? I mean the phone hasn't come out yet can't they just put the 1.7GHZ instead? why use a lower one 1.5GHZ from phones of the fourth quarter of 2012 its old tech!!!
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously? "Only" on a quad core 1.5ghz CPU for a smartphone? What are you gonna run on your phone that would require you more? Or do you just want your battery to drain more for no possible reasons? Some users even just underclock for the sake of saving battery.
If you ask me I buy this because of the features and the RAM not because of processor clock.
If you ever let me choose I would rather go for a 1ghz dual core processor with 4GB RAM than having a 2ghz quad core processor with 2GB RAM.
The only reason why I would want the Qualcomm S4 Pro processor is because of adreno 320.
A dual core is good enough dude .. this is a quad core lol
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
No offense but you just sound like your trolling. Same goes for your other thread too
AK4TAY7BEN said:
No offense but you just sound like your trolling. Same goes for your other thread too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. I think he's trolling.
Riyal said:
Seriously? "Only" on a quad core 1.5ghz CPU for a smartphone? What are you gonna run on your phone that would require you more? Or do you just want your battery to drain more for no possible reasons? Some users even just underclock for the sake of saving battery.
If you ask me I buy this because of the features and the RAM not because of processor clock.
If you ever let me choose I would rather go for a 1ghz dual core processor with 4GB RAM than having a 2ghz quad core processor with 2GB RAM.
The only reason why I would want the Qualcomm S4 Pro processor is because of adreno 320.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What would be the purpose of 4GB of RAM in a smartphone are you running Photoshop or a VM? Where did this stigma that more cores is equivalent to less efficient power use. More asynchronous cores allow for more accurate scaling of processing power to needs, thus higher power efficiency because the CPU spends less time in higher power states.
REAVER117 said:
What would be the purpose of 4GB of RAM in a smartphone are you running Photoshop or a VM? Where did this stigma that mire cores is equivalent to less efficient power use. More asynchronous cores allow for more accurate scaling of processing power to needs, thus higher power efficiency because the CPU spends less time in higher power states.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Buddy android runs Dalvik VM and our GPU uses dedicated RAM for processing certain graphic tasks. So yes we are running a VM on our mobile phones.
Also with a proper monitoring app you could see for yourself which uses more and needs more resource here. whether processing or memory.
Didn't you even wonder why our phones consume almost 700mb RAM without even a single foreground application open? Yet it sits idle in a single core and remains in between 400mhz+ to 900mhz?
Also I didn't say that more cores consumes more power in my statement but still since each core requires power to run it should also consume more. Also I didn't mention anything about number of core I was talking about the clocks. Since the higher the clock requires more Amperes. Still underclocking your phone by 500mhz would prolly just save about 2% of your battery anyways.
you don't need higher cpu clock to get a pocket heater for this winter
My Optimus G has the same cpu an the thermal throttling is kikin in pretty fast. This 1.7Ghz S4pro will thermal throttle as fast or even faster, rendering numerical advantage meaningless.
I don't want to feed the troll but I also think dual core is good enough.
Riyal said:
Buddy android runs Dalvik VM and our GPU uses dedicated RAM for processing certain graphic tasks. So yes we are running a VM on our mobile phones.
Also with a proper monitoring app you could see for yourself which uses more and needs more resource here. whether processing or memory.
Didn't you even wonder why our phones consume almost 700mb RAM without even a single foreground application open? Yet it sits idle in a single core and remains in between 400mhz+ to 900mhz?
Also I didn't say that more cores consumes more power in my statement but still since each core requires power to run it should also consume more. Also I didn't mention anything about number of core I was talking about the clocks. Since the higher the clock requires more Amperes. Still underclocking your phone by 500mhz would prolly just save about 2% of your battery anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have yet to see my Xperia ZL have less than 800MB of free an extra 2GB would be a total waste. And you simply stated you'd rather have a dual than a quad, peak frequency means very little except for potential processing power. Just because your CPU is capable of a higher clock speed doesn't mean it will idle any higher. Likewise the only difference between a quad with a single utilized core and a dual with a single utilized core is the minute amount if extra leakage current for the quad.
I think you meant to say that higher frequencies may need more voltage, amperage has very little to do with CPU frequency scaling.
And obviously the memory overhead for a virtualized process i.e. Dalvik VM is not even in the same league as a system VM.
REAVER117 said:
I have yet to see my Xperia ZL have less than 800MB of free an extra 2GB would be a total waste. And you simply stated you'd rather have a dual than a quad, peak frequency means very little except for potential processing power. Just because your CPU is capable of a higher clock speed doesn't mean it will idle any higher. Likewise the only difference between a quad with a single utilized core and a dual with a single utilized core is the minute amount if extra leakage current for the quad.
I think you meant to say that higher frequencies may need more voltage, amperage has very little to do with CPU frequency scaling.
And obviously the memory overhead for a virtualized process i.e. Dalvik VM is not even in the same league as a system VM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Buddy that 800mb is without running any foreground applications other than either Settings app or the homescreen. Like I said try running some monitoring apps on the background and try using the browser then maybe try loading some sites with lots of javascript codes in it.
Or if you like try launching 4 types of angry birds and the 2 temple run games simultaneously without killing one of them and let's see if OOM doesn't kick in and kill any of them.
Regarding CPU cores please state something that requires a quad core processor. The smoothness of the UI your experiencing is because of the type of processor your phone is using "The Snapdragon S4 Pro" even if you disable all the extra cores in it you won't feel anything different unless of course you'll run some benchmark tools or video decoding stuffs in there.
And just FYI more cores doesn't mean greater processing power. It's more cores = more processes it can handle.
And on the CPU freq clocks who said t that amperes doesn't increase on each frequency table? Please take a look at qualcomm's document on their site regarding it's processors so you would know how they calculate it. Voltage is just used to provide more electricity to power up the processor but voltage alone won't make a processor active.
This discussion is going to the wrong way.
Thread closed.
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.
A thread where all benchmarks are posted. Especially when comparing exynos vs SD 820
http://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s7_and_s7_edge_benchmarked_the_exynos_flavor-news-16794.php
Sent from my SM-G925F
Seems way of if you ask me.. should kill the z5... There is deff something wrong here!
johanbiff said:
Seems way of if you ask me.. should kill the z5... There is deff something wrong here!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Z5 is rendering in 1080p so there's no surprise it comes ahead in onscreen benchmarks. The mali-gpu is also not the strongest. Pretty sure the 820 will perform better.
---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
http://www.phonearena.com/news/LG-G5-shakes-hands-with-Snapdragon-820-to-shatter-AnTuTu-records-benchmark-test-scores_id78636
LG G5 seems to be scoring almost 20k higher than the exynos 8890-equipped S7. S820 looks to be the better SoC by far at this point.
https://youtu.be/qMJ2x6POZak
128k there.i guess its the exynos
Anyway not enough to surpass the iphone
http://www.antutu.com/en/view.shtml?id=8184
s3ns3lol said:
https://youtu.be/qMJ2x6POZak
128k there.i guess its the exynos
Anyway not enough to surpass the iphone
http://www.antutu.com/en/view.shtml?id=8184
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously ? Do you even know how ios and android operate ?
Sent from my SM-G925F
To sum things up: the Snapdragon 820 sports a better GPU, the Exynos 8890 sports a better CPU and a better DAC (Qualcomm DACs just haven't got the best of reputations, while the Exynos usually sport a decent Wolfson DAC), Qualcomm SOCs however usually sport a better baseband/radio than the competition.
I would say, in daily usages, the performances should be negligible, the real impact between both should be battery life related, an early preview done on the Exynos 8890 version claims a 12hrs battery life at maximum brightness on the S7 (not the S7 Edge), I guess we will see how it goes when more reviews come in.
mathieulh said:
To sum things up: the Snapdragon 820 sports a better GPU, the Exynos 8890 sports a better CPU and a better DAC (Qualcomm DACs just haven't got the best of reputations, while the Exynos usually sport a decent Wolfson DAC), Qualcomm SOCs however usually sport a better baseband/radio than the competition.
I would say, in daily usages, the performances should be negligible, the real impact between both should be battery life related, an early preview done on the Exynos 8890 version claims a 12hrs battery life at maximum brightness on the S7 (not the S7 Edge), I guess we will see how it goes when more reviews come in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No Wolfson this time. It seems Samsung is using an in-house DAC.
http://www.sammobile.com/2016/02/22...ony-imx260-camera-sensor-in-house-audio-chip/
Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk
skivnit said:
Seriously ? Do you even know how ios and android operate ?
Sent from my SM-G925F
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes.And its irrelevant.that test is cross platform
s3ns3lol said:
Yes.And its irrelevant.that test is cross platform
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No you dont get it. Android uses multi cores to the fullest thats why multi core performance is the thing to look at, i suggest u read a piece on the subject on Anandtech
Sent from my SM-G925F
another benchmark between sd 820 and 8890:
www.anandtech.com/show/10075/early-exynos-8890-impressions
i hope the 4 core difference between the two doesn't mean worse performance on the sd 820 variant. Also if you in the EU you will -apparently- be getting the exynos variant :crying:
i also read somewhere that said that the sd 820 had 2x custom (kyro) a-72 cores and 2x custom (kyro) a-53 cores and not 4x cutom (kyro) a-72 cores, hope its not true.
s3ns3lol said:
Yes.And its irrelevant.that test is cross platform
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quoted from the comments of the article at AnandTech linked above:
It seems perfectly competitive in the graphics benchmarks, and comparing JavaScript benchmarks across different hardware, OS, and browser configurations is useless. To say Apple's Safari team "aggressively optimizes" for Octane and Kraken would be an understatement. Plus we're talking about simple benchmarks that can barely make any use of a second processor core, so of course they make the A9's dual-core CPU design look good next to more parallel competitors. Run something like Geekbench MT or the 3DMark physics test and watch A9 lose out to even Exynos 7420 or SD 810.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
overlordofdoom1 said:
another benchmark between sd 820 and 8890:
www.anandtech.com/show/10075/early-exynos-8890-impressions
i hope the 4 core difference between the two doesn't mean worse performance on the sd 820 variant. Also if you in the EU you will -apparently- be getting the exynos variant :crying:
i also read somewhere that said that the sd 820 had 2x custom (kyro) a-72 cores and 2x custom (kyro) a-53 cores and not 4x cutom (kyro) a-72 cores, hope its not true.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The s820 has two custom cores and two lower-clocked A53s. It really won't matter that it has two fewer larger cores, as more cores leads to more heat, and more heat to more throttling. Only in benchmarks will it be noticeable.
Toss3 said:
The s820 has two custom cores and two lower-clocked A53s.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you find that the 2 lower clocked are indeed A53s? What I have read, SD820 has 2 high clocked 2.15GHz and 2 low clocked 1.59GHz "Kryo cores"? So those 2 downclocked Kryo cores should be A72 like power not A53?
SAVVAS. said:
Where did you find that the 2 lower clocked are indeed A53s? What I have read, SD820 has 2 high clocked 2.15GHz and 2 low clocked 1.59GHz "Kryo cores"? So those 2 downclocked Kryo cores should be A72 like power not A53?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm not sure, but pretty sure they aren't the same cores as the faster ones, as that way they could just have clocked them higher, and have them downclock instead of having them at 1.59Ghz all the time.
GFX Bench battery and throttling test of exynos variant. From 2800 frames to 1400 in 10 minutes of load. http://4pda.ru/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=707315&view=findpost&p=47363269
If some1 find snapdragon s7 results, please post it here.
TANKRED_ENDURES said:
GFX Bench battery and throttling test of exynos variant. From 2800 frames to 1400 in 10 minutes of load. http://4pda.ru/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=707315&view=findpost&p=47363269
If some1 find snapdragon s7 results, please post it here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ouch i think for sd820 we have to wait a bit since its us and China only
Sent from my SM-G925F
TANKRED_ENDURES said:
GFX Bench battery and throttling test of exynos variant. From 2800 frames to 1400 in 10 minutes of load. http://4pda.ru/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=707315&view=findpost&p=47363269
If some1 find snapdragon s7 results, please post it here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Says the test ran for 220 minutes. EDIT: Okey that was the results of the battery-test. But still where did you get 10 minutes from? If you look at the graphs you can clearly see that it dips only once to 1400 and that was at about the 1200 second mark (20 minutes).
http://www.talkandroid.com/286767-vivo-xplay-5-gets-benchmarked-on-antutu/#more-286767
Vivo Xplay 5 scored around 160k on Antutu and that is with the Snapdragon 820. Think Samsung should have stuck with Qualcomm for all regions this time around. Wish we could get the sd-version here in Europe as well.
Toss3 said:
http://www.talkandroid.com/286767-vivo-xplay-5-gets-benchmarked-on-antutu/#more-286767
Vivo Xplay 5 scored around 160k on Antutu and that is with the Snapdragon 820. Think Samsung should have stuck with Qualcomm for all regions this time around. Wish we could get the sd-version here in Europe as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its probably fake as most of the score comes from GPU which is impossible and then theres 1080p vs qhd screen question
Sent from my SM-G925F
Throttling looks much better compared to 7420.
They have made GPU wider and lower frequency, also better manufacturin process. Bound to get better compared to 7420.
---------- Post added at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------
skivnit said:
Its probably fake as most of the score comes from GPU which is impossible and then theres 1080p vs qhd screen question
Sent from my SM-G925F
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, in latest version of Antutu it gives more priority to onscreen numbers and single core performance. That's why iPhones are at top of chain in Antutu
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