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.
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
I have an Atrix and I'm wondering are there any apps/Widgets that will show frequency of a core (doesn't have to show both as my second core is usually offline) in real time and that wont just stop functioning after an Hour or so.
Sent from Atrix 4G running CM7 ICS MOD2 @ 1.3Ghz
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/cpu-usage-frequency-monitor-dual-core-support/
Thank me later.. Or now.
system tuner is free and amazing app. It shows everything from both cpus to the time they spend at a certain frequency and if your rooted it has functions like set cpu... fo free!
i was messing aroud with voltage control and cpu spy and i noticed that the cpu speed was only topping out at like 1ghz these phones come with dual core 1.5 ghz correct? mine has never seen that high of a speed is there a reason or am i missing something? on my s2 it had a 1.2 dual core cpu i believe and it said how long each speed had seen action and i even bumped it up to like 1.4. im nervous to mess around with the speed if its already 1.5 i was just gonna set it to like 1.6 or something.but it seems mine is running each core at just 1ghz can anyone lend me some light on this.
You have Power Saving ON , that limits max cpu speed.
ahh thank you so much another question on spu spy it says unused cpu stats im guessing is 1.1 and 1.2 is there a reason they are unused? also just a guess but looks like i cant go any higher than 1.5 with voltage control? is there another app that lets me bump it up to like 1.6? or 1.7?
Don't worry about it , cpuspy doesn't have full history of your cpu activity, cpu clocks up and down depending on load.
CpuSpy is not very reliable from my experience.
You need to flash a different kernel that will allow you to over clock the cpu. Voltage control will allow you to do this but you need a kernel that will let you over clock first.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
ok thanks.
Does anyone know any apps that control the CORES? I have had a tough time finding an app that will let me run on a single core to save significant power. I know there's undervolting and lowering cpu speed but I'm looking for a core control app,
Thaxtonator said:
Does anyone know any apps that control the CORES? I have had a tough time finding an app that will let me run on a single core to save significant power. I know there's undervolting and lowering cpu speed but I'm looking for a core control app,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU Sleeper
My guess is you want better battery life so rather than making 1 core sleep try setting your cpu speed to 1ghz or 800mhz as top speed it will be as slow as just 1 core
Sent from my Amaze 4G using xda app-developers app