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...
Related
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.
Hi,
I dont know whether if this question has been asked or not but
as in dual core it each core 1.2 making in total 2.4? or each core is half ?
if it is half doesn't that make it worse ?
it is two 1.2 GHz cores. However you can't plain sum up the core frequency and declare that SGS2 is 2.4 GHz, cores do not work like that.
Yes "if it is half", it would have made it that much slower
faddys123 said:
Hi,
I dont know whether if this question has been asked or not but
as in dual core it each core 1.2 making in total 2.4? or each core is half ?
if it is half doesn't that make it worse ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each core is cadenced at 1.2 Ghz.
Both have 1.2 ghz. You never specify the total amount of ghz.
EDIT: Ninja'd. That's what you get for opening a thread, leaving the computer for 10 minds and then reading it..
flooki said:
Both have 1.2 ghz. You never specify the total amount of ghz.
EDIT: Ninja'd. That's what you get for opening a thread, leaving the computer for 10 minds and then reading it..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok so each core is 1.2 but on average it would be near 2.4 ?
edit: also waht i ment by half is that is each core half 1.2 ?
faddys123 said:
Hi,
I dont know whether if this question has been asked or not but
as in dual core it each core 1.2 making in total 2.4? or each core is half ?
if it is half doesn't that make it worse ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
zxz0O0 said:
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That pretty much sums it up. Short & Simple.
zxz0O0 said:
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks i get it, i only asked this because i was on youtube and seen a Motorola atrix video saying its the fastest in the world because each core was 1ghz which made the 2 but now i get it
zxz0O0 said:
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is the best description of how dual core works I have ever heard! Simple and easy to understand. Will have to remember that for future reference when people ask about dual core
eagerly awaiting explanation of a multi-CPU device, and what multi-threading is.
thanks
kreoXDA said:
eagerly awaiting explanation of a multi-CPU device, and what multi-threading is.
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
COOL JOKE lol
Don't know if it's same on mobile devices but on a computer:
Multi Core = Multiple processes running at same time (Multi Tasking)
Multi Threaded = Multiple theads runnable inside the same process providing functionality (more Multi Tasking)
dh2311 said:
That is the best description of how dual core works I have ever heard! Simple and easy to understand. Will have to remember that for future reference when people ask about dual core
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! Also a good explanation is:
Core = brain
If you need to take a maths exam and you have two brains (two cores) you don't have more IQ and can't answer one exercise faster.
However, one brain (core1) can start with exercise #1 while the other brain (core2) can start with exercise #2. Summary: You are as double fast as normally taking the whole exam. But you are not faster answering one single question.
kreoXDA said:
eagerly awaiting explanation of a multi-CPU device, and what multi-threading is.
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhm, I don't have special explanations for these things. Multiplying the core frequency with the numbers of cores is a common error and is asked very often. That's why I thought about a good and very-easy-to-understand explanation.
Though I still try to answer.
Multi-CPU device is just a device using mutliple cores. Mobile devices try to achieve the same as desktop CPUs. With multiple cores you can complete more work at the same time and also at lower power.
Multithreading is a feature of the CPU. A software supporting multithreading must be running to use it. It allows the CPU to execute multiple threads at the same time.
Short:
Multi-CPU device: using multiple cpu cores to execute more tasks at the same time
Multithreading: feature to execute more threads (inside one task) at the same time.
Sorry about the mistakes I made and I am looking forward (to the weekend) to possible reforms
zxz0O0 said:
Sorry about the mistakes I made and I am looking forward (to the weekend) to possible reforms
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you just had to bring HER into this didn't you lol
I have a question about the 3D's dual core that I'd like more clarification on the vague answers I'm getting by searching this site and google. So I've read that the core is asynchronous so basically meaning the second core doesn't do much work unless needed as others like the tegra 2 and exynos have both cores running or something similar to that, and that this is affecting the benchmark scores. I also read that one would basically double the score of the 3D to get a more accurate reading. Can anyone confirm or further explain this?
Yes, asynchronous is when something operates on another thread whereas the main thread is still available for operating. This allows for better performance in terms of managing tasks. Now just because it doesn't score high on a benchmark, it doesn't mean it is going to perform. Also this allows for better performance for the battery.
I haven't slept for the past 12 hours so if this doesn't help you, just let me know and I will fully elaborate on how the processor will operate on the phone. Now time for bed :'(
In short, asynchronous operation means that a process operates independently of other processes.
Think of transferring a file. A separate thread will utilized for doing so. You will then be able to do background things such as playing with the UI, such as Sense since you will be using the main thread. If anything were to happen to the transferring file (such as it failing), you will be able to cancel it because it is independent on another thread.
I hope this makes sense man, kind of tired. Now I'm really going to bed.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
To be more specific by asynchronous they mean that each core can run at different clock speeds. Core 1 could be at 1.2 ghz while core 2 is at 200 mhz. Most multi core processors are synchronous meaning all the cores are running at the same speed.
donatom3 said:
To be more specific by asynchronous they mean that each core can run at different clock speeds. Core 1 could be at 1.2 ghz while core 2 is at 200 mhz. Most multi core processors are synchronous meaning all the cores are running at the same speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^This too
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
I was also very curious to learn a little more about the async cores and how it differes from a standard "Always-On" dual core arctechiure.
Thh first page/video I found talks about the SnapDragon core specifically.
http://socialtimes.com/dual-core-snapdragon-processor-qualcomm-soundbytes_b49063
From what I've gathered, it comes down to using the second core and thus more power, only when needed. Minimizing voltage and heat to preserve battery life.
The following video goes into similar and slightly deeper detail about the processor specifically found in the EVO 3D. The demo is running a processor benchmark with a visual real time usage of the two cores. You can briefly see how the two cores are trading off the workload between each other. It was previously mentioned somewhere else on this forum, but I believe by seperating a workload between two chips, the chip will use less power across the two chips vs putting the same workload on a sinlge chip. I'm sure someone else will chime in with some additional detail. Also, after seeing some of these demos, I'm inclined to think that the processor found in the EVO 3D is actually stable at 1.5 but has been underclocked to 1.2 to conserve battery. Only time spent within our hands will tell.
Another demo of the MSM8660 and Adreno 220 GPU found in the EVO 3D. Its crazy to think we've come this far for mobile phone technology.
What occurred to me is how complex Community ROMs for such a device may become with the addition of Video Drivers that may continue to be upgraded and improved (think early Video Card tweaks for PC). Wondering how easy/difficult it will be to get our hands on them, possibly through extraction of updated stock ROMs.
EDIT: As far as benchmarks are concerned, I blame the inability of today's bench marking apps to consider async cores or properly utilize them during testing to factor the over all score. Because the current tests are most likely to be spread across cores which favors efficiency, the scores are going to be much lower than what the true power and performance of the chips can produce. I think of it as putting a horsepower governor on a Ferrari.
thanks for the explanation everyone
The best demonstration is in the first video posted, notice when Charbax looks at the monitor. There on the top right are the frequencies of the two cores, and you'll notice the both of them jumping around a lot, independent of the other. Using the cores "on-demand" only when needed ends up saving a lot of battery power, but doesn't give you any performance loss.
Harfainx said:
The best demonstration is in the first video posted, notice when Charbax looks at the monitor. There on the top right are the frequencies of the two cores, and you'll notice the both of them jumping around a lot, independent of the other. Using the cores "on-demand" only when needed ends up saving a lot of battery power, but doesn't give you any performance loss.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually I was thinking that not just the battery savings but there could be a performance gain. Think of this if the manufacturer knows they only have to clock one core up to speed when needed they can be more aggressive about their timings and have the core clock up faster than a normal dual core would since they know they don't have to clock up both processors when only one needs the full speed.
I wonder if the drop to 1.2 GHz also serves to keep heat under control. It might not just be battery savings, maybe the small case of a phone doesn't allow for proper cooling to hit 1.5 safely.
I'd love to see some confirmation that the asynchronous nature of this chipset is what's responsible for the seemingly lackluster benchmarking.
mevensen said:
I wonder if the drop to 1.2 GHz also serves to keep heat under control. It might not just be battery savings, maybe the small case of a phone doesn't allow for proper cooling to hit 1.5 safely.
I'd love to see some confirmation that the asynchronous nature of this chipset is what's responsible for the seemingly lackluster benchmarking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "horrible" benchmark scores are simply due to the tests inability to consider async core performance. Wait till the tests are able to take this into consideration.
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA Premium App
RVDigital said:
The "horrible" benchmark scores are simply due to the tests inability to consider async core performance. Wait till the tests are able to take this into consideration.
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I went through all of your links, I didn't see anything that confirms that the benches are somehow affected by the asynchronous nature of the chipset. It's not that I don't believe you, I actually had that same theory when the benches first came out. I just don't have any proof or explanation of it. Do you have a link that provides more solid evidence that this is the case?
NVIDIA actually tells a different story (of course)
http://www.intomobile.com/2011/03/24/nvidia-tegra-2-outperforms-qualcomm-dualcore-1015/
AnandTech's article does explain some of the differences
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4144/...gra-2-review-the-first-dual-core-smartphone/4
It appears that Snapdragon (Scorpion) will excel in some tasks (FPU, non-bandwith constrained applications), but will fall short in others .
I'm pretty sure none of the benchmark apps have even been updated past the release of the sensation so yeah....How could they update the app to use the asynchronus processors the if the only phones to use them have only recently been released.
Sent from my zombified gingerbread hero using XDA Premium App
I had the G2x for like 3 days and never got to root. Poor service where I live. But could the cores be set to a specific frequency independently when rooted like computers?
tyarbro13 said:
I had the G2x for like 3 days and never got to root. Poor service where I live. But could the cores be set to a specific frequency independently when rooted like computers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, if someone were to develop an app for that. I do not see why not.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Hmm...
If a program such as Smart bench (which takes advantage of dual cores) is stressing both cores to 1.2ghz then regardless of if both cores are active or not the bench will be accurate.
I would rather NOT have asyncronus cores as there would be lag during frequency changes...
Ex:
2 cores running at 500mhz vs 1 core @ 1ghz and other not active.
The 2 cores will produce less heat and use less energy...
Maedhros said:
Hmm...
If a program such as Smart bench (which takes advantage of dual cores) is stressing both cores to 1.2ghz then regardless of if both cores are active or not the bench will be accurate.
I would rather NOT have asyncronus cores as there would be lag during frequency changes...
Ex:
2 cores running at 500mhz vs 1 core @ 1ghz and other not active.
The 2 cores will produce less heat and use less energy...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There dual, it would be better for them to run asynchronous. Not only that, but it is a phone so there will be no lag between frequency changing. 2 Cores running at 500mhz will perform better than 1 core at 1ghz.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
tyarbro13 said:
I had the G2x for like 3 days and never got to root. Poor service where I live. But could the cores be set to a specific frequency independently when rooted like computers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is something that the hardware needs to be capable of. Software can only do so much. As far as I've seen Tegra isn't capable of it.
I read the anandtech article and I came with conclusion that everyday task you might not see the difference between the two and while tegra2 might bench higher. The main thing people dont talk about is the GPU. Adreno 220 is a powerhouse GPU, it will probably stand strong when tegra 3 comes out.
DDiaz007 said:
There dual, it would be better for them to run asynchronous. Not only that, but it is a phone so there will be no lag between frequency changing. 2 Cores running at 500mhz will perform better than 1 core at 1ghz.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh... what are u saying? Sorry dont understand... On one hand you say asynchronous is better and on the other ur saying 2 cores @ 500 will work better?
nkd said:
I read the anandtech article and I came with conclusion that everyday task you might not see the difference between the two and while tegra2 might bench higher. The main thing people dont talk about is the GPU. Adreno 220 is a powerhouse GPU, it will probably stand strong when tegra 3 comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What?!?
Andreno 220 is a horrible GPU. AT BEST it is equal to the GPU in the Original SGS.
The reason benches are so different is because Qualcomm has made NO improvements in the CPU. Desire HD CPU is the same as Sensations. While... SGS2 + Tegra have IMPROVED CPUs.
Arm 7 vs arm 9?
Maedhros said:
Huh... what are u saying? Sorry dont understand... On one hand you say asynchronous is better and on the other ur saying 2 cores @ 500 will work better?
What?!?
Andreno 220 is a horrible GPU. AT BEST it is equal to the GPU in the Original SGS.
The reason benches are so different is because Qualcomm has made NO improvements in the CPU. Desire HD CPU is the same as Sensations. While... SGS2 + Tegra have IMPROVED CPUs.
Arm 7 vs arm 9?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude go back to sleep. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
Hi guys,
Given that our superphone uses two cores, I was just wondering how can it be that the temperatures are soaring when playing, say.. Asphalt 6, when with one core (i.e. Galaxy S1) the temperature when playing the same game was burning my hands a bit less. (imo, at least)
If you have two cores, instead of one, doesn't that mean that the work load gets divided in half, and so the processors work half as less?
Of course, this is also related to battery life. Dual cores were supposed to be more energy efficient than single cores.
Just sayin'..
Talbred said:
Hi guys,
If you have two cores, instead of one, doesn't that mean that the work load gets divided in half, and so the processors work half as less?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No this is not correct in practice, only in theoretical examples in powerpoint-slides from those who makes the dual-core processors... Well to be honest there are probably several cases in reality as well, but not as many as the want us to believe.
Games are a typical task that is difficult to load-balance, the usually consist of a few threads, and mostly one thread has the highest load. And when it comes to Tegra 2 and Exynos, both cores have the same clock frequency, so both cores will usually be at full clock frequency during an intensive game.
the true cause, right now the 2.3.x is not Dual Core / Quad Core compatible
so it's wasted processing, basically right now BOTH, yes both CPU are processing the same app at 100%
wait for Ice cream Sandwich 4.0 to be released then it should truely split the load between the 2 CPU instead of 1 CPU doing everything or both CPU doing the same thing in mirror
AllGamer said:
the true cause, right now the 2.3.x is not Dual Core / Quad Core compatible
so it's wasted processing, basically right now BOTH, yes both CPU are processing the same app at 100%
wait for Ice cream Sandwich 4.0 to be released then it should truely split the load between the 2 CPU instead of 1 CPU doing everything or both CPU doing the same thing in mirror
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not really correct, this is what I've learned (but please correct me if I'm mistaken):
The java part (the part in Dalvik virtual machine) of an app cannot use more than one core (this is where all this "not dual core compatible" comes from), but different apps can be on different cores, and even more important:
native code outside of Dalvik VM are handles as usually in Linux, i e no problem to have many threads/processes automatically allocated on different cores. And advanced 3d games most likely have a lot of native code.
So in 2011 we have Tegra 2, in 2012 we have Tegra 3 so my questions is what will come in 2013? Octo-core or an improved version of quad core cpus?
Fasty12 said:
So in 2011 we have Tegra 2, in 2012 we have Tegra 3 so my questions is what will come in 2013? Octo-core or an improved version of quad core cpus?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as octo core desktop CPUs havnt really caught on yet I would guess just better quad cores likely with more powerful GPUs
Tegra 3 is already very powerful, presuming the will increase ram and make them more battery efficient or even higher clock speed. 12 core tegra gpu is pretty amazing already and anything better must be godly
Sent from my HTC Desire using xda app-developers app
If u mean for mobile platform , Will we really need beyond Quad core, having seen how SGSIII is smoothly running with it, beyond that what more perfection ( yaa still more can be expected) and speed u will need to do ur work . As known Android use other cores on need basis , why u need to see ur 2-3 cores never used.. i think its just more curiosity n to have more advaced/latest will be the only reason to have such high cpu on ur mobile..
What I like to see is ups in RAM installed and lows in RAM usage by system...
Sounds like octo-mom..the debate.lives on.. battery vs performance...but to answer your question I think it would be hexa-core which is 6..let's wait and see what is to come...
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
s-X-s said:
If u mean for mobile platform , Will we really need beyond Quad core, having seen how SGSIII is smoothly running with it, beyond that what more perfection ( yaa still more can be expected) and speed u will need to do ur work . As known Android use other cores on need basis , why u need to see ur 2-3 cores never used.. i think its just more curiosity n to have more advaced/latest will be the only reason to have such high cpu on ur mobile..
What I like to see is ups in RAM installed and lows in RAM usage by system...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Cores are at there peak right now. The amount of CPU power we have especially in the higher end phones is enough to acomplish many, many things. RAM is somewhat of an issue especially since multitasking is a huge part of android. I really thing a 2gb RAM should be a standard soon. Also, better gpu's won't hurt
Sent from my HTC T328w using Tapatalk 2
If they decide to keep going on the core upgrade in the next two or so years, I see one of two possibilities happening:
1) Dual Processor phones utilizing either dual or quad cores.
or
2) Hexacore chips since on the desktop market there's already a few 6-core chips (though whether or not they would actually be practical in the phones architecture, no clue).
Generally speaking whatever they come out with next will either need a better battery material, or lower power processors.
I mean I'm pretty amazed by what my brother's HTC One X is capable of with the quad core, and here I am still sporting a single-core G2. But yes I would like to see more advancement in RAM usage, we got a nice bit of power, but how bout a standard 2GB ram for better multitasking?
I believe 2013 will be all about more efficient quad-cores.
May i ask what going from 1gb to 2gb will improve? Loading times?
hello everyone, could you tell me what is cuad core?
Quad core means that a processor has four processing units.
Because there are more, that means that a process, theoretically, gets executed 4 times faster.
Read more about it: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
Maybe i7 in mobile devices?
I'm sure it will stay at quad core cpu's, anything more is just overkill. They may introduce hyperthreading. It's going to boil down to efficiency.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
I'd say the future lies in more efficient use of processors. Right now, Android is still far from optimized on multi-core processor-equipped devices. Project Butter is the start of a great movement by Google to optimize the operating system. Hopefully it spreads out to other OEMs and becomes the main focus for Android development.
Improving and optimizing current processors is the way hardware companies should go.
In my opinion, processor development is out running battery development. Optimized processors could reduce power consumption while preserving excellent speed and usability.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2
building processors on more efficient ARM architectures is going to be the way to go from what I see......throwing four less efficient cores at a problem is the caveman method to dealing with it.....looking at you Samsung Exynos Quad based on tweaked A9 cores.....
the A15 based Qualcomm S4 Krait is more efficient on a clock for clock core for core basis and once the software catches up and starts using the hardware in full capacity, less more efficient cores will be preferred
I dont see anything beyond quads simply because they havent even scratched the surface of what can be done with a modern dual core processor yet.......throwing more cores at it only makes excuses for poor code.....i can shoot **** faster than water with a big enough pump......but that doesn't mean that's the better solution
We don't need more cores! Having more than 2 cores will not make a difference so quad cores are a waste of space in the CPU die.
Hyperthreading, duh.
More ram. Got to have the hardware before the software can be made to use it.
With the convergence of x86 into the Android core and the streamlining of low-power Atom CPUs, the logical step would be to first optimize the current software base for multi-core processors before marketing takes over with their stupid x2 multiplying game...
Not long ago, a senior Intel exec went on record saying that today, a single core CPU Android smartphone is perhaps better overall performing (battery life, user experience, etc) than any dual/quad-core CPU. Mind you, these guys seldom if ever stick out their neck with such bold statements, especially when not pleasing to the ear...
For those interested, you can follow this one (of many) articles on the subject: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/intel-android-not-ready-for-multi-core-cpus/20746
Android needs to mature, and I think it actually is. With 4.1 we see the focus drastically shifted to optimization, UX and performance with *existing/limited* resources. This will translate to devices beating all else in battery life, performance and graphics but since it was neglected in the first several iterations, it is likely we see 4.0 followed by 4.1 then maybe 4.2 before we hear/see the 5.0 which will showcase maturity and evolution of the experience.
Just my 2c. :fingers-crossed: