Motorola url: http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Fact-Sheets/Motorola-ATRIX-4G-Fact-Sheet-353b.aspx(Screenshot attached for those who are on device.)
Line of interest:
Processor: 2 processor cores running at 1GHz each
Nvidia url: http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-2.html
Lines of interest:
CPU: Dual-Core ARM Cortex A9
Frequency: 1 GHz, per core
Does this mean we have an effective 2GHz processing power in this device.
On a side note, my laptop is a quad core 2GHz, with each core at ~500MHz adding up to 2GHz in all. So that line got be confused thinking.
I've never heard of a 500Mhz quad core processor, but I have heard of a 2Ghz quad core processor, effectively providing 8GHz of processing power.
Nah, it really doesn't work like that. Each core will only run at 1ghz MAX, the benefit to having a second (or more) cores is that while you are doing something the second core is doing background stuff and you aren't getting bogged down. Or if the app supports it it can use both. Here's where things get fun....if your app uses both cores running at 1 ghz each it can TECHNICALLY process as fast as a 2ghz SINGLE CORE but its more like you get 50%-75% more performance from the second core. So I guess TECHNICALLY it would be the same as a single core 2ghz CPU...but at the same time not really? A 2ghz single would do things faster on single tasks, but multitasking the dual core is way better IMO. Hope that helps some.
harolds said:
I've never heard of a 500Mhz quad core processor, but I have heard of a 2Ghz quad core processor, effectively providing 8GHz of processing power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check in any CPU analyzer. Mine is a quad core, and each processor gets noted as ~500 MHz. I think u can find it even in 'device manager'.
Initially I too thought that I was getting 8GHz of power in my CPU, only to find later that it was infact 500x4.
Strange, my office system (desktop) is a dual core, and shows it at each core at 3GHz. Will check once more on my laptop when I get home. This is crazy!
But good to know. Even the graphics part of it has 8 cores. Was going through the specs. It rocks!
diablo009 said:
Check in any CPU analyzer. Mine is a quad core, and each processor gets noted as ~500 MHz. I think u can find it even in 'device manager'.
Initially I too thought that I was getting 8GHz of power in my CPU, only to find later that it was infact 500x4.
Strange, my office system (desktop) is a dual core, and shows it at each core at 3GHz. Will check once more on my laptop when I get home. This is crazy!
But good to know. Even the graphics part of it has 8 cores. Was going through the specs. It rocks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure your processor hasn't been underclocked as part of some sort of battery saving feature? I don't think most applications can even utilize all 4 cores, which would mean individual applications would perform...pretty slowly. Right?
chbearsrock said:
Are you sure your processor hasn't been underclocked as part of some sort of battery saving feature? I don't think most applications can even utilize all 4 cores, which would mean individual applications would perform...pretty slowly. Right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This has always been baffling me. I'll check today evening n update here. But now I am super happy abt the processor in atrix.
if you are in windows run cpu-z and post a screen shot.
skaboss610 said:
if you are in windows run cpu-z and post a screen shot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here u go.
its this processor. each core runs at a clock of 2ghz
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40480
according that screen shot, you have
2GHZ * 4CORES = 8GHZ
so... you had 8ghz all along!
Techcruncher said:
according that screen shot, you have
2GHZ * 4CORES = 8GHZ
so... you had 8ghz all along!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aaah!!! No wonder I paid $1300 for this laptop in July 2009. And no wonder games released even in 2011 are playing so well without any frame rate issue.
Thanks for clearing this up kind sir.
Related
I'm kind of confused as to how phones don't use the same aspect as computers when it comes to the cores having the same amount of speed on each core. According to a couple articles, which I will post later ( was on droid guy, its late ), the phone comes with 2 600MHZ processors on 1 chip, making it a 1.2 GHZ dual core? From my understanding, this is NOT correct. I don't take my Q6600 say it has 2.4GHZ on each core and multiply that by 4 to get the correct speed of the chip and have a godly 9.6GHZ. It remains 2.4GHZ for each core. Can anyone explain why this is different or not true with the upcoming dual core phones?
Here is one link saying 2 600MHZ cores:
http://thedroidguy.com/2011/03/hands-on-with-htc-evo-3d-on-sprint/
heathmcabee said:
I'm kind of confused as to how phones don't use the same aspect as computers when it comes to the cores having the same amount of speed on each core. According to a couple articles, which I will post later ( was on droid guy, its late ), the phone comes with 2 600MHZ processors on 1 chip, making it a 1.2 GHZ dual core? From my understanding, this is not correct. I don't take my Q6600 say it has 2.4GHZ on each core and multiply that by 4 to get the correct speed of the chip and have a godly 9.6GHZ. It remains 2.4GHZ for each core. Can anyone explain why this is different or not true with the upcoming dual core phones?
Here is one link saying 2 600MHZ cores:
http://thedroidguy.com/2011/03/hands-on-with-htc-evo-3d-on-sprint/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhhmm..NO. To my understanding, it's 1.2GHz per core.
redlinux said:
Uhhmm..NO. To my understanding, it's 1.2GHz per core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah there was a hands on video where a Rep said it was 1.2ghz per core. Think it was the Androidcentral one. Can't remember.
this phone is going to fly.
I ASKED QUALCOMM and told me it is 1.2 per core
Sent from my HTC Incredible S using XDA App
It's rated at how high each core is capable of going. It doesn't measure how much they are combined.
Google search, my friends, is a valuable tool.
Umm it's 1.2 ghz each core.
AbsolutZeroGI said:
It's rated at how high each core is capable of going. It doesn't measure how much they are combined.
Google search, my friends, is a valuable tool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'm sorry for asking this, I did try and find a viable answer to what they were talking about, but my google searches must have not been very detailed enough to get a specific answer. Thanks for the reply.
The SPEED of the core processing is not a cumulative effect...
1.2 ghz is just that. 1.2 million/million instructions per cycle!
A PROCESSOR performs a simple binary function which is to operate a switch which will be either on or off, or a 1 or a zero. The processor is measured in how many transistors it has which can perform that on/off in how many times per second, hence it's speed. Overall, they keep making chips smaller and quicker, allowing the compact placement of now 2 processors or cores within the space of a single chip. The DUAL core represents that their are TWO distinctive operations per cycle, within ONE chip. So now you have twice the computations being performed in the same cycle. Meaning the single processing chip can handle 1.2 million/million switches (transistors = on/off = binary - 1/0) per cycle then times that by two. A very powerful leap over a single core chip.
Not half that x2 to make one...
Lol... maybe a bad translation, but one I hope might help clarify what the chip is doing.
Regards!
1.2ghz per core.
if you find a device that has dual 600mhz processors in it why would you ever even consider buying it? no offense. sprint would go under if that is what they released as their evo3d.ive known these specs for over 3 weeks now @google/skynet is your friend.
MagnusRagnarok said:
1.2ghz per core.
if you find a device that has dual 600mhz processors in it why would you ever even consider buying it? no offense. sprint would go under if that is what they released as their evo3d.ive known these specs for over 3 weeks now @google/skynet is your friend.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please read the OP again correctly and see that I am referring to the link in that states it is 2 600MHZ processors. I have been building computers for over 10 years with A+ certifications and MSCE. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I was just point out the fact that the website states differently, and I was wondering if this was coincidence or fact.
heathmcabee said:
Please read the OP again correctly and see that I am referring to the link in that states it is 2 600MHZ processors. I have been building computers for over 10 years with A+ certifications and MSCE. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I was just point out the fact that the website states differently, and I was wondering if this was coincidence or fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People like to read one sentence and then tell someone they are stupid for asking a question. Instead of letting the 3-4 posts after yours suffice people feel the need to comment on someone's "supposed" stupidity.
I've recently seen some tablets advertised as "dual core" that have two separate processors; one a standard and one a DSP like the Archos (specs copied below).
Processor(s) Central Unit:
Main processor: ARM CortexTM-A8, 32 bit, In-order, dual-issue, superscalar core @ 800 MHz
Additional processor: 32 bit DSP @ 430 MHz
I don't believe it was the Archos advertised, I think it was a Ramos advertised somewhere. The third party advertisements I saw stated that the unit had two cores, each at 1.2GHz, for a total of 2.4Ghz. I'm not an electronics person, but I believe that listing a unit as "dual core" or having two cores when in fact there is one cpu and one dsp is very misleading if not simply incorrect.
These types of statements in advertising could certainly lead to questions about what "dual core" really means.
Just thought I'd add the thought, I hope it was helpful.
cooolone2 said:
The SPEED of the core processing is not a cumulative effect...
1.2 ghz is just that. 1.2 million/million instructions per cycle!
A PROCESSOR performs a simple binary function which is to operate a switch which will be either on or off, or a 1 or a zero. The processor is measured in how many transistors it has which can perform that on/off in how many times per second, hence it's speed. Overall, they keep making chips smaller and quicker, allowing the compact placement of now 2 processors or cores within the space of a single chip. The DUAL core represents that their are TWO distinctive operations per cycle, within ONE chip. So now you have twice the computations being performed in the same cycle. Meaning the single processing chip can handle 1.2 million/million switches (transistors = on/off = binary - 1/0) per cycle then times that by two. A very powerful leap over a single core chip.
Not half that x2 to make one...
Lol... maybe a bad translation, but one I hope might help clarify what the chip is doing.
Regards!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to avoid any confusion this is explanation is close but not quite correct. 1.2ghz is not 1.2 million instructions per cycle...it is 1.2 billion cycles per second. How many instructions occur in each cycle Depends on the processor architecture; how many transistors the chip has, the chips instruction set, the bus width, and many other factors. This is why chips with the same clock rating can run at radically different speeds.
Not trying to nitpick, just want to make sure people understand...not all processors are created equal....even if they do operate at the same clock speed.
Hope this helps...
I could have swore ghz was billions of instructions and not millions..
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
UPDATE
I sent the kid an email pointing out the error and he made a correction within 5 minutes.
This phone is packing a 1.2 ghz dual-core processor, and for all of you wondering that is two separate 1.2 ghz processors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cut him some slack... He is 16 and a sophomore in high school. Just needs a little encouragement and correct info.
From Wikipedia
A dual-core processor has two cores (e.g. AMD Phenom II X2, Intel Core Duo), a quad-core processor contains four cores (e.g. AMD Phenom II X4, the Intel 2010 core line that includes 3 levels of quad core processors), and a hexa-core processor contains six cores (e.g. AMD Phenom II X6, Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 980X). A multi-core processor implements multiprocessing in a single physical package. Designers may couple cores in a multi-core device tightly or loosely. For example, cores may or may not share caches, and they may implement message passing or shared memory inter-core communication methods. Common network topologies to interconnect cores include bus, ring, 2-dimensional mesh, and crossbar. Homogeneous multi-core systems include only identical cores, heterogeneous multi-core systems have cores which are not identical. Just as with single-processor systems, cores in multi-core systems may implement architectures such as superscalar, VLIW, vector processing, SIMD, or multithreading.
Multi-core processors are widely used across many application domains including general-purpose, embedded, network, digital signal processing (DSP), and graphics.
--- Effective is 1.2 GHz itself. a single Processing unit but with 2 Cores (instead of single core which has disadvantages of congestion. )
The improvement in performance gained by the use of a multi-core processor depends very much on the software algorithms used and their implementation. In particular, possible gains are limited by the fraction of the software that can be parallelized to run on multiple cores simultaneously; this effect is described by Amdahl's law. In the best case, so-called embarrassingly parallel problems may realize speedup factors near the number of cores, or even more if the problem is split up enough to fit within each core's cache(s), avoiding use of much slower main system memory. Most applications, however, are not accelerated so much. The parallelization of software is a significant ongoing topic of research.
lifted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
heathmcabee said:
Please read the OP again correctly and see that I am referring to the link in that states it is 2 600MHZ processors. I have been building computers for over 10 years with A+ certifications and MSCE. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I was just point out the fact that the website states differently, and I was wondering if this was coincidence or fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't he say DUAL 600MHz processors?
Tapa tapa tapa
mlin said:
Didn't he say DUAL 600MHz processors?
Tapa tapa tapa
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He did, but apparently he fixed it. Guess it was just inexperience on his part.
Cut the high school student a bit of slack... I sent him an email days ago and he corrected the site quickly...
I was just thinking about something. Is it really a fair comparison between an asynchronous dual core and a conventional dual core such as the Tegra or the OMAP4? We all know how everyone loves to compare benchmarks on phones. Also, we all know that the 3d does horrible on Quadrant scores. Is this because of the type of cpu we have? If it is... Is it really fair to even try to compare them?
My thinking is that, if both of our cores ran at the same speed all of the time, our cpu would dominate everything on benchmarks. Am I wrong in thinking that? Is there any way we would truly know?
Ps. Hope this isn't dumb thinking. If it is, please just state why and move on. I am NOT trying to start any flame war or troll thread. This is a 100% completely sincere question.
Thanks in advance!
Sent by my supercharged dual core from the 3rd dimension.
Benchmark scores mean **** anyways. I don't know why people insist on using them. If the phone runs well, it runs well
Tad slower mostly because its based on a similar ARM cortex A8 design. Those other ones, like galaxy s2 or other SOC's are based on the newer cortex A9 designs. Been analyzed several times over anandtech or other sites. Besides those benchmarks are not dual core at all. So we are apples to apples. Difference is in designs. If you compare two cpus clocked at same speeds (snapdragon/A8 vs A9) A9 will come ahead.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
I understand that benchmarks don't mean anything. I just want to know if the fact that our cpu is asynchronous had anything to do with the exceptionally low scores compared to other devices.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
I'd chalk it up to the fact that the most recent OMAP and Exynos are based on A9 while our scorpion cores are heavily modified A8 designs by qualcomm.
Ours are in between A8 and A9.
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium
I briefly und understand the difference between A9 and A8 based chips but I personally think the current snapdragon in the shooter (msm8660?) is a much superior chip then the tegra 2. I got tiered of my og evo so I bought the shooter off contract from a buddy for cheap and plan to get the nexus prime which I belive will land at sprint before January (contract up). The rumors are that will use OMAP 4660 clocked at 1.5. Just rumors I know. But how will that compare to the snapdragon in terms of speed and battery?
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
ROM synergy 318 OC 1.8 (2.3.3 base) literally SMOKED the sgs2, was hitting 4000+ with quadrant advanced, but yeah, scores mean nothing. We should have OC again soon, and get nice shiny scores again.
From what I have been reading, A8, A9, v6, v7 or whatever there is now doesn't really equate to any performance gains. The companies license from ARM or they can create their own SoC based on ARM, so its kind of like saying there's an Intel Core 2 Duo and then a AMD Athlon X2, but they are both based on x86 architecture. There's a lot of confusion regarding the whole A8 A9 terminology, so honestly, I don't think it matters much what ARM revision or whatever our SoC is using in the Evo 3D.
What I would really like to know is if the Asynchronous part of it is making a difference in the scores. Does anyone know this? That is the biggest question I have.
Hard to really say which processor is more powerful; but at this stage in smartphones all the dual cores seem to be powerful enough to where it doesn't matter. Asynchronous vs the other guys may be a different story though. Asynchronous cores means each core can be at a different clock speed, so when we get the next version to android (in October or November) and we get to take full advantage of dual core support we may have significantly better battery life than them.
So to elaborate on what you want i guess: Asynchronous cores has nothing to do with the benchmarks because these benchmarks are only running one core anyway (i'm pretty sure).
sprinttouch666 said:
Hard to really say which processor is more powerful; but at this stage in smartphones all the dual cores seem to be powerful enough to where it doesn't matter. Asynchronous vs the other guys may be a different story though. Asynchronous cores means each core can be at a different clock speed, so when we get the next version to android (in October or November) and we get to take full advantage of dual core support we may have significantly better battery life than them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok. Now, what about performance wise? Will we be at an advantage or disadvantage?
lyon21 said:
Ok. Now, what about performance wise? Will we be at an advantage or disadvantage?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check this out if you are worried about performance. I think this pretty much sums up how powerful the new snapdragon chipset
http://www.qualcomm.com/blog/2011/04/27/next-gen-snapdragon-dual-core-mdp
lyon21 said:
What I would really like to know is if the Asynchronous part of it is making a difference in the scores. Does anyone know this? That is the biggest question I have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends... If you are benchmarking with a non multithreaded app like quadrant, it doesn't matter as you're running on a single core on both. A9 will be faster. And if you're running a multithreaded benchmark that fully uses both cores then the "asynchronous" thing goes out of play as you're using both cores on both devices.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
il Duce said:
ROM synergy 318 OC 1.8 (2.3.3 base) literally SMOKED the sgs2, was hitting 4000+ with quadrant advanced, but yeah, scores mean nothing. We should have OC again soon, and get nice shiny scores again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, then if you overclock an A9 to 1.8 ghz you're back to square one and A9 is still faster. I think Qualcomm has already announced their roadmap and a A9 killer is on its way. I think its a quad core with adreno 3xx (will also have dual core with updated architecture to beat A9, but then ARM is coming up with the A15 Hahaha, the never ending race)
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
sn0b0ard said:
From what I have been reading, A8, A9, v6, v7 or whatever there is now doesn't really equate to any performance gains. The companies license from ARM or they can create their own SoC based on ARM, so its kind of like saying there's an Intel Core 2 Duo and then a AMD Athlon X2, but they are both based on x86 architecture. There's a lot of confusion regarding the whole A8 A9 terminology, so honestly, I don't think it matters much what ARM revision or whatever our SoC is using in the Evo 3D.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it matters, like your comparison, each chip has new sets of instructions, pipelines and optimization. Clock for clock, and like other guy said our snapdragons are between an A8 and A9 and the A9 is simply faster. Ours is an older architecture. By no means a slouch, but its the truth.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
jamexman said:
Yes it matters, like your comparison, each chip has new sets of instructions, pipelines and optimization. Clock for clock, and like other guy said our snapdragons are between an A8 and A9 and the A9 is simply faster. Ours is an older architecture. By no means a slouch, but its the truth.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See, here's the thing. Qualcomm doesn't just go stock ARM architecture. They licensed the technology and made their own snapdragon chipset. Is the snapdragon chipset family old? Yes, it has been around for a while. Is the chipset that is in the Evo 3D old? Not really. It was just developed by Qualcomm relatively recently and expands on their existing, proven QSD chipset. This is like comparing apples to oranges, they are just two different SoCs. If you were to take an absolutely stock ARMv9 and put it against an absolutely stock ARMv7/8, then yes, the ARMv9 obviously is going to win, but these companies try and market that their CPUs are one version higher than others, when in all reality, they modify the hell out of the ARM architecture to make their chipsets.
sn0b0ard said:
Check this out if you are worried about performance. I think this pretty much sums up how powerful the new snapdragon chipset
http://www.qualcomm.com/blog/2011/04/27/next-gen-snapdragon-dual-core-mdp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally off topic Sorrrry!!!
Just followed the link above and WOW!! how can we con Qualcom into giving us a copy of that home launcher they use with the live wallpaper as well..HMMMMM
jamexman said:
Well, then if you overclock an A9 to 1.8 ghz you're back to square one and A9 is still faster. I think Qualcomm has already announced their roadmap and a A9 killer is on its way. I think its a quad core with adreno 3xx (will also have dual core with updated architecture to beat A9, but then ARM is coming up with the A15 Hahaha, the never ending race)
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is much harder to push a A9 based SOC to 1.8 Ghz compared to the A8 based MSM8660. Clock per clock, A9 will be faster. The A9 has greater IPC and a shorter pipeline, but this also prevents the A9 from running at as high frequencies as an A8 based SOC. How many 1.8 Ghz Exynos chips do you see? In some regards the MSM8660 clearly beats some A9 based SOCs like the Tegra 2 which even lacks hardware support for NEON instructions. Snapdragons have also always traditionally had high floating point performance too.
Also there is no competition between Qualcomm and ARM. Qualcomm simply licenses designs from ARM and then customizes them for its own needs.
How big is the performance difference between this SOCs? and even though 4460 is more powerful will we see performance changes because the Galaxy Nexus uses a higher pixel count?
Razr will have 4460 - the same CPU as Galaxy Nexus. Information about 4430 chipset - is just a first guess. Motorola and their distributors confirmed it will have 4460 version
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
UPD: I was wrong. They changed information on motodev website. Now the specs says its 4430. http://developer.motorola.com/products/razr-xt910/
nailll said:
Razr will have 4460 - the same CPU as Galaxy Nexus. Information about 4430 chipset - is just a first guess. Motorola and their distributors confirmed it will have 4460 version
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you cite that? Everything that I've been reading about the RAZR has suggested otherwise.
Also read this: http://androidforums.com/motorola-droid-razr/431262-4430-4460-update-2-does-not-have-4460-a.html
Explains the differences between the 2 chips.
They posted 4430 on motodev portal a few days ago
It's 4430.
http://developer.motorola.com/products/droid-razr-xt912/
Damn. Sorry. I was confused. http://www.droid-life.com/2011/10/1...with-full-specs-omap4460-processor-confirmed/
Galaxy Nexus uses TI OMAP 4460 at 1,2GHz CPU and 304MHz GPU.
It doesn't use full speed of 1.5GHz CPU and 384MHz GPU.
So frequencies are the same between Galaxy Nexus and Moto Razr.
Razr has lower resolution 960x540 vs 1280x720.
So Razr should be faster.
should the 4460 be more efficient than the 4430 at 1.2GHz？
Diagrafeas said:
Galaxy Nexus uses TI OMAP 4460 at 1,2GHz CPU and 304MHz GPU.
It doesn't use full speed of 1.5GHz CPU and 384MHz GPU.
So frequencies are the same between Galaxy Nexus and Moto Razr.
Razr has lower resolution 960x540 vs 1280x720.
So Razr should be faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where are you seeing that the GPU clock in the Galaxy Nexus is 304MHz?
Chirality said:
Where are you seeing that the GPU clock in the Galaxy Nexus is 304MHz?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here are the specs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_OMAP#OMAP_4
Galaxy nexus has 384 mhz
soremir said:
Here are the specs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_OMAP#OMAP_4
Galaxy nexus has 384 mhz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU and GPU frequencies are linked.
So i strongly doudt that with a 1,2 GHz CPU you can get 384MHz GPU.
Diagrafeas said:
CPU and GPU frequencies are linked.
So i strongly doudt that with a 1,2 GHz CPU you can get 384MHz GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What makes you think that the CPU and GPU clocks are linked?
Chirality said:
What makes you think that the CPU and GPU clocks are linked?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They aren't... I don't know where he got that.
didibabawu said:
should the 4460 be more efficient than the 4430 at 1.2GHz？
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With emphasis on "should", yes. All things constant in the wild world of chip yields, the 4430 "should" require more effort to reach 1.2ghz. Not long to find out.
rushless said:
With emphasis on "should", yes. All things constant in the wild world of chip yields, the 4430 "should" require more effort to reach 1.2ghz. Not long to find out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the 4430 actually comes in two flavors, a 1ghz and a 1.2ghz. I don't believe they are taking the 1ghz processor and overclocking it.
My understanding is the 4430 and 4460 are from the same wafers. The 4430's are just the ones that did not run reliably at 1.5 but would at 1.2. Kind of the samw on pc processors. AMD had some quad cores that would only run reliably on 3 cores. Instead of throwing them away, change the model number and sell them. This has been common for years. So it could be possible someone's 4430 might run reliably at 1.4.
Oaklands said:
My understanding is the 4430 and 4460 are from the same wafers. The 4430's are just the ones that did not run reliably at 1.5 but would at 1.2. Kind of the samw on pc processors. AMD had some quad cores that would only run reliably on 3 cores. Instead of throwing them away, change the model number and sell them. This has been common for years. So it could be possible someone's 4430 might run reliably at 1.4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^ That is all that needs to be said.
Oaklands said:
My understanding is the 4430 and 4460 are from the same wafers. The 4430's are just the ones that did not run reliably at 1.5 but would at 1.2. Kind of the samw on pc processors. AMD had some quad cores that would only run reliably on 3 cores. Instead of throwing them away, change the model number and sell them. This has been common for years. So it could be possible someone's 4430 might run reliably at 1.4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Usually when chips are binned this way, the higher binned and lowered binned chips tend to be released at about the same time. However, there's a several months gap between the release of OMAP4430-based devices and OMAP4460-based devices, which seems to indicate that they are manufactured separately. Granted, this is the SoC-market with long lead times and complicated device development cycles so perhaps the chips were available at the same time but it has just taken longer for OMAP4460 devices to reach market, but the big gap between release frames suggest to me that these two SoCs are developed separately.
Chirality said:
Usually when chips are binned this way, the higher binned and lowered binned chips tend to be released at about the same time. However, there's a several months gap between the release of OMAP4430-based devices and OMAP4460-based devices, which seems to indicate that they are manufactured separately. Granted, this is the SoC-market with long lead times and complicated device development cycles so perhaps the chips were available at the same time but it has just taken longer for OMAP4460 devices to reach market, but the big gap between release frames suggest to me that these two SoCs are developed separately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's nothing preventing them from releasing them months apart.
zetsumeikuro said:
There's nothing preventing them from releasing them months apart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes there is, inventory. If they are binning chips off the same line but they are only selling the lower binned ones but holding off on selling the higher binned ones for several months, then they are piling up inventory of the higher clocked chips and not doing anything with them.
Now it is possible that the yield on the higher clocked chips is very low, such that only after several months of binning did they have enough inventory to move them to OEMs. But then this would mean that you'll probably have a harder time overclocking the 4430s due to how much difficulty they had with yields for higher clocked chips.
Asus told us that the original Transformer was dual core but its actually 1ghz for computing and 1ghz for graphics (which i guess is dual core but not in the way we all thought.).
Just hoping they dont pull something similar with the Prime...
jleewong said:
Asus told us that the original Transformer was dual core but its actually 1ghz for computing and 1ghz for graphics (which i guess is dual core but not in the way we all thought.).
Just hoping they dont pull something similar with the Prime...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? Not sure where you're pulling your information from, but Tegra 2 consists of a dual-core CPU with each core at 1Ghz and ULP GeFoce GPU running at 333Mhz.
Technically speaking its 5 cores and a gpu.
The Tegra 3, which the Prime has, consists of a 4 1.4GHz CPU cores along with another low-power core. It also has a 12 core GPU.
The TF101, the original transformer, had a Tegra 2. The Tegra 2 had 2 1GHz CPU cores and a 333MHz GPU core.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Tegra
I guess it really was dual core, awhile back when I first purchased a Viewsonic G-tablet (I've had every other tegra 2 tablet since) I read a review that said tegra 2 wasnt really dual core because it was using 1ghz for cpu and another 1ghz for gpu. But according to the tegra 2 wiki it really is dual core.
Still dont understand why my Archos 70 runs webpages and go launcher better, it only has a single core 1ghz cpu . Maybe it was honeycomb that made the tegra 2 seem slugish.
Tegra 3 has the 4 cores and that single companion core, so it should have no problems I hope, expecially when ICS hits.
jleewong said:
I guess it really was dual core, awhile back when I first purchased a Viewsonic G-tablet (I've had every other tegra 2 tablet since) I read a review that said tegra 2 wasnt really dual core because it was using 1ghz for cpu and another 1ghz for gpu. But according to the tegra 2 wiki it really is dual core.
Still dont understand why my Archos 70 runs webpages and go launcher better, it only has a single core 1ghz cpu . Maybe it was honeycomb that made the tegra 2 seem slugish.
Tegra 3 has the 4 cores and that single companion core, so it should have no problems I hope, expecially when ICS hits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Tegra 2 is two ARM A9 chips @ 1.00Ghz (and later on, 1.2Ghz) CPU alongside an 8 core GeForce GPU.
The The Tegra 3 is a four ARM A9 chips @ 1.4GHz alongside a 12 core GeForce GPU + a 5th underclocked A9 for power-saving features.
xTRICKYxx said:
The Tegra 2 is two ARM A9 chips @ 1.00Ghz (and later on, 1.2Ghz) CPU alongside an 8 core GeForce GPU.
The The Tegra 3 is a four ARM A9 chips @ 1.4GHz alongside a 12 core GeForce GPU + a 5th underclocked A9 for power-saving features.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The The Tegra 3 is a four ARM A9 chips @ 1.3GHz (upto 1.4GHz in single core mode) alongside a 12 core GeForce GPU + a 5th underclocked A9 for power-saving features.
jleewong said:
Maybe it was honeycomb that made the tegra 2 seem slugish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably. They made a mistake of not making the home screen hardware accelerated. It's supposed to be fixed in ICS.
So i was really bored and messing around with the watch and ran an AnTuTu benchmark on it.
8,692 was the score. I I'm on the stock 5.0.1 just rooted.
I've pieced together some screenshots of the score and I'll attach them below.
After turning on all 4 cpus, setting the governor to performance, and changing the gpu governor to performance I got a 16,827.
Pointless but fun.
Really bored, weren`t you?
reb1995 said:
After turning on all 4 cpus, setting the governor to performance, and changing the gpu governor to performance I got a 16,827.
Pointless but fun.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i was unaware that the g watch was quad core i thought it was a lousy dual or single core. strange that the Galaxy live has a little powerful single core.
Trozzul said:
i was unaware that the g watch was quad core i thought it was a lousy dual or single core. strange that the Galaxy live has a little powerful single core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quad-core Cortex-A7 1.2GHz, but only one core is online and its locked at 0.7GHz.
ruben46_ said:
Really bored, weren`t you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very bored....
Trozzul said:
i was unaware that the g watch was quad core i thought it was a lousy dual or single core. strange that the Galaxy live has a little powerful single core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah the Snapdragon 400. Not sure what the Gear Live is though but I think it is also the Snapdragon 400.