It may be a typo in the build.prop but it says our processor is armv7 rev2.. Does anyone know if this is actually what's under the hood? I'd be pretty bummed
Pretty sure the processor is based on Arm Cortex A8 so it's last generation but dual core. The SGSII is based on Arm Cortex A9. Not sure how this relates to Armv7 though.
lokhor said:
Pretty sure the processor is based on Arm Cortex A8 so it's last generation but dual core. The SGSII is based on Arm Cortex A9. Not sure how this relates to Armv7 though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was under the same impression but I'm still curious about the build.prop... idk probly just a screw up
From here:
CPU:
Architecture: ARM v7
ARM core: ARM Cortex-A9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like there are 2 different ones. One for the chipset, one for the cores themselves. Chipset is ARM v7, Cores are A9
Also, I have no clue WTF any of this means. Google + 30 seconds = Some possibly useful info.
Edit: Okies, after doing some looking: There's no v8, only v7. The Cortex A9 is a subcategory of that, like different versions of it. Like we have gingerbread, 2.3. You can have subcategories of 2.3.3, 2.3.4, etc, which are all patches with improvements. So the CPU runs on ARM v7-A9, if that makes more sense...
Of course, this is how the processor is built, so it's not like it can be "Patched" to the newer versions when they come out... So that's just an example, to make it easier to understand.
The Scorpion CPU is a modified Cortex A8. ALL newer Cortex Ax CPUs are based on the ARMv7 instruction set architecture (ISA.)
Summary:
CPU is based on ARM's ARMv7 instruction set architecture intellectual property, which is branded Cortex A8. (Newer TI OMAP, and the Exynos are Cortex A9, basically unmodified, but are *still* using the ARMv7 ISA.)
Ergo, ARMv7 --> instruction set architecture, Cortex A8 --> configuration/branding.
APOLAUF said:
The Scorpion CPU is a modified Cortex A8. ALL newer Cortex Ax CPUs are based on the ARMv7 instruction set architecture (ISA.)
Summary:
CPU is based on ARM's ARMv7 instruction set architecture intellectual property, which is branded Cortex A8. (Newer TI OMAP, and the Exynos are Cortex A9, basically unmodified, but are *still* using the ARMv7 ISA.)
Ergo, ARMv7 --> instruction set architecture, Cortex A8 --> configuration/branding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah hah. Thankyou. Someone who knows what they're talking about, and isn't just pulling stuff out of their search engine.
BlaydeX15 said:
Ah hah. Thankyou. Someone who knows what they're talking about, and isn't just pulling stuff out of their search engine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad to help. I will be starting as junior faculty at the University of Louisville, and I'm teaching microprocessor design, so I hope I can remember all this! ARM definitely has made quite a salad of their branding. For instance, the classic ARM9 CPU is based on ARMv5, while the ARM7 is based on ARMv4 (if I'm not mistaken - I have a few of the dev boards lying around somewhere... there were actually variants of the 7 and the 9 that were both under v4 and v5 ISAs). The ARM11 (which was found in the newer 400MHz+ pocket PCs and smartphones of old) used the ARMv6 architecture, and all Cortex use ARMv7. What a mess! I guess that's what happens when you just create CPU core intellectual property, without manufacturing a single chip.
APOLAUF said:
Glad to help. I will be starting as junior faculty at the University of Louisville, and I'm teaching microprocessor design, so I hope I can remember all this! ARM definitely has made quite a salad of their branding. For instance, the classic ARM9 CPU is based on ARMv5, while the ARM7 is based on ARMv4 (if I'm not mistaken - I have a few of the dev boards lying around somewhere... there were actually variants of the 7 and the 9 that were both under v4 and v5 ISAs). The ARM11 (which was found in the newer 400MHz+ pocket PCs and smartphones of old) used the ARMv6 architecture, and all Cortex use ARMv7. What a mess! I guess that's what happens when you just create CPU core intellectual property, without manufacturing a single chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got an iPaq sitting here...I didn't even realize it was sitting here until you said ARM11 and then I looked down in back of my keyboard, saw that and a giant whooshing sounded flew through my head and reminded me that after reading all of your posts and thinking to myself "this guy really knows his stuff...wow, I doubt I could ever know all of that stuff" that, in fact, I already did in a previous life....lol.
But as you already stated (in different words) "Knowing" is the easy part, remembering is the hard part and to that end you have one upped me.
...wow, bizarre feeling, lol, thanks...
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
stimpyshaun said:
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is a modified ARM8 ISA CPU that uses the ARMv7 instruction set, Cortex is a branding.
...that is correct, and if it isn't swap a couple acronyms and numbers around and it will be.
if you r curious here are some links talking about how the scorpion core is similar and different from both a8 and a9
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3632/anands-google-nexus-one-review/8
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4144/...gra-2-review-the-first-dual-core-smartphone/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3632/anands-google-nexus-one-review/9
stimpyshaun said:
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct in that the Scorpion cannot be technically branded as an A8. Qualcomm licenses the ARMv7 ISA and basic core design (which ARM called Cortex A8) (when we implement these in FPGA, we call them softcores - kinda kinky. ). Qualcomm, when designing their initial Snapdragon, essentially gave a checklist to ARM for the reference design that they wanted their IP library to use.
For instance, Intel marketed the PXA 255 and PXA 270-series CPUs. (HTC PPC 6700 and Dell Axims, anyone? ). Despite being a CPU innovator in the desktop realm, the cores were still based on ARM reference designs - Intel's mobile division selected the reference they wanted, added MMX, etc., and then went to fab with it. By the same token, the Scorpion was based on ARMv7 ISA, which in its initial incarnation, as used by Qualcomm, was the Cortex A8. What came out of that is, logically, different, but related enough, the same way the PXAs were ARM11 reference desgins (ARMv6.) Qualcomm added the NEON instruction set, as well as out-of-order execution, for example, something the other Cortex CPUs didn't have (this may have changed with the A9), in order to increase data and instruction-level parallelism. They also added the ability to perform fine-grain CPU clock frequency and voltage throttling, much more so than in the stock A8 reference.
I guess in the long run, if they don't update their references to an A9 IP library variant, or perhaps something newer down the road, the Scorpion will start lagging behind the competition rather significantly. Not that I'm complaining at the moment, I love my 3vo's performance as it is.
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
here it says qualcomm does not use arms cortex reference designs but infact designed its own
if it is wrong than blame qualcomm... if I am misunderstanding it please explain
stimpyshaun said:
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
here it says qualcomm does not use arms cortex reference designs but infact designed its own
if it is wrong than blame qualcomm... if I am misunderstanding it please explain
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boy, they certainly make it sound that way! My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That they don't use the reference design is clear - the end-product isn't the same product that is the core design in the Cortex/v7 spec. However, I don't think that Qualcomm has the capital and the resources to do a full-scale, ground-up build of a CPU. Note that even Intel didn't do this (!) when they entered (and then promptly exited) the mobile CPU-building business.
The Qualcomm processor design team most-likely chooses attributes and then custom-designs additional features and configurations, and Qc does have the fabs to produce the silicon to state-of-the-art, or (state-of-the-art - 1) process technologies, as is clear from their stated transistor design (with a certain leakage factor) and feature size (45nm - keeping in mind that Samsung has this down to 32nm (you might want to check me on that, this may be a lie )).
So, let me restate my original opinion - I value your inputs, and this document certainly does its best to make the CPU look unique in the market. My understanding is that a certain core of the IP library is still present in the A8 format from ARM. It's entirely possible that none of the original architecture was kept in its native forms - design, routing, and layout might all be different, but I think ultimately, the CPU finds its roots in part of the original A8 design. To simply use the ISA without *any* reference to the original A8, I think, is beyond Qualcomm's capabilities, at least at present.
I suppose a reasonable example may be seen in the car world. Take the Lexus ES series vs. the Toyota Camry (just to name a plain-jane, basic example that most people would know.) The ES looks, performs, and runs differently. It has different features, a different pricetag, and many different interior and even engine-bay features (and probably a larger engine.) But ultimately, it is just an altered Camry. The extent of the alterations here is the question (and bringing an analog to an ISA into the automotive domain is tricky - maybe the use of an engine and 4 wheels? ). Anyway, perhaps only Qualcomm knows the answer, but well done sir, in bringing an in-depth discussion to the table.
To put this into layman's terms:
You can mostly think of the term "architecture" as being a language that the CPU speaks, and the software must therefore be written in that language (or as programmers refer to it, being compiled into that language.) Android apps speak java bytecode to the dalvik engine, which then translates and speaks ARMv7 to the CPU. Different phones can run on different architectures and still have the apps be compatible because the dalvik engine can be compiled for each different architecture.
Now, the "core" in this sense is the specific implementation of that architecture. The easiest analogy to that I can think of, is that intel and AMD CPU's both use the x86 architecture, but their implementations are way different. They are designed far different from one another, but in the end they speak the same language more or less.
There are variations to the ARM "language" which is indicated by the revision number (ARMv7) just as there are variations to the x86 "language." For example, you have x86 32-bit and you have x86 64-bit, and then there are extensions to x86 such as SSE, 3dnow, etc. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.
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...
Hey guys,
When I fire up SetCPU, under CPU information it says I have an ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l).
Infact, each and every system information tool I've run on my phone keeps telling me the same thing.
These tools also keep telling me I have 1 processor core. Not 2. Got me really worried until the app "SystemPanel" showed me the activity of 2 CPU cores.
PHEW!!! Doesn't this phone have an ARM Cortex-A9 proccessor?
What do you guys see?
funeralcrows said:
Hey guys,
When I fire up SetCPU, under CPU information it says I have an ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l). Infact, each and every system information tool I've run on my phone keeps telling me the same thing. "SystemPanel" is the only app that showed me 2 CPU cores activity. Doesn't this phone have an ARM Cortex-A9 proccessor?
What do you guys see?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cortex-A9 is a ARMv7 chip. See here
Wow, my ass is officially cool now. Thanks a lot man =D
How donkey kong of me.
if you want to compare it to intel processors, saying that it's ARMv7 is like saying it's a Sandy Bridge processor. Saying it's a Cortex A9 is like saying it's an i5(as opposed to an i3 or an i7).
What is the EXACT FULL Brand name of the processor?
My phone also shows the processor as : ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v71)
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ARM_microprocessor_cores shows there are several sub classifications of ARMv7......so what exactly is the FULL brand name of this Processor? Is it really dual core? And is it good? Where does it stand when compared to Tegra and Exynos?
It's Samsung Exynos 4210 dual core
Doing a bit of enquiry, I found that both Exynos 4210 and Tegra 2 are SOCs (System-on-a-chip). These chips are jack of all trades, and amalgamate the ARM processor, GPU, anamnesis controllers and alien interfaces into a distinct chip. All SGS II phones with model number GT-i9100 have the Exynos 4210 and the model number GT-i9103 has the Tegra 2. Correct me if I'm wrong.
smaskell said:
if you want to compare it to intel processors, saying that it's ARMv7 is like saying it's a Sandy Bridge processor. Saying it's a Cortex A9 is like saying it's an i5(as opposed to an i3 or an i7).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No ARMv7 is the instruction set, that is different from Sandy bridge which is a cpu architecture. So sandy bridge and cortex A9 are more on the same level but not exactly the same. And i5 is similar to a specific version of Exonys, but I think there only is one version
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
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.
After being embarrassed by the iPhone's PowerVX SGX543 GPU, I do hope Samsung regains the crown in performance and see this with the new MALI GPUs slated for the Galaxy S Line.
What's probably going to be used in the Galaxy S III?
The Mali T604
The Mali-T604 was announced last year and it's the first implementation of ARM's new Midgard architecture. The T604 appears to be ARM's first unified shader architecture. Each T604 core is a combination of two arithmetic pipes and one texture pipe, although the width and capabilities of each are unknown. Like the Mali-400, the Mali-T604 will be available in 1 - 4 core configurations. The first T604 based SoCs will be available in the second half of 2012 on 28/32nm silicon. ARM is promising up to 68 GFLOPS of compute from T604 (presumably that's for a 4-core configuration at high clocks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that's not the Juicy part.. what I'm excited for is the GALAXY S IV!!! (If we're all still alive by that time)
It boasts the MALI-T658 GPU!
The T658 is a second generation Midgard implementation with twice the arithmetic pipes per core compared to the T604. ARM also enables up to 8-core configurations with T658. We'll see the first T658 implementations on 28/32nm sometime in 2013. It's unclear what other architectural changes have been made compared to the T604, but at bare minimum we can hope for a doubling of execution resources. ARM is promising up to a 10x increase in performance compared to "mainstream" Mali-400 implementations (perhaps single-core Mali-400).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you see that? 8 freaking cores!
One can just imagine what tech we have by then.
Probably the following:
Super Amoled + HD
1.5 ghz Quad-core
Octo-core GPU
My God.
Only 28nm? TSMC has had sucessful batches of 22nm.
Guess we're skipping III.
The trends we are seeing in this part of the World (Asia) with the New Crop of "Value for Money" Smartphones is MediaTek Processors...
Be it Lenovo, Alcatel or all major vendors in Asia, China, Indonesia...they are starting to go with these Processors...
Having said that We see a lot of Bad Mouth about this brand of Proccy....so what the real deal?
All of us would agree when we are looking at a dual core smartphobe at under 200 $ prce bracket.....we cant expect a Snapdragon S3!
And looks like all new VFM Samrtphones from China OEM or other places who rebrand OEM are ending up being MediaTek!
Starting this thread to get some discussion going for more enlightenment....
Current MediaTek Proccys in Market :
- MT6575 : Single core Cortex-A9 solution with an unidentified 5-series PowerVR GPU
- MT6577 : Dual Core 1GHz Cortex™-A9 application processor from ARM, a PowerVR™ Series5 SGX GPU
MediaTek breaks into Top 5 in Smartphones Procy sales Worldwide!
MediaTek in Top 5
MediaTek announces Dual Core Proccy for Sub 200$ Smartphones
MediaTek Launches Dual Core Processors
Lenovo A750 - First Android Phone with MediaTek MTK MT6575 Processor
http://youtu.be/9cgnCgqD-9A
bad mouth about mediatek, well i don't think so. mediatek processors should be at par with any other processors but the problem is afaik they dont release their kernel sources and they are still stuck with their sgx 531t gpu which is almost at par with our adreno 205 but not any better. however i might be wrong. i read about this a long time back and i dont remember the exact source.
nayneshdev said:
bad mouth about mediatek, well i don't think so. mediatek processors should be at par with any other processors but the problem is afaik they dont release their kernel sources and they are still stuck with their sgx 531t gpu which is almost at par with our adreno 205 but not any better. however i might be wrong. i read about this a long time back and i dont remember the exact source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are on PowerVR GPU Now...on eh 1Ghz Single Core and 1 Ghz Dual Core chips
I'd suggest to move the whole discussion to "Android General". There you will certainly find more people to discuss your particular issues and do not spam this board. Thank you....even if I sound like forum police now :laugh:
moved