So i had just read in the hacking section about removing n soldering a new ram, they say that it's possible but nt practical.
So it hit me can we take the same cpu i.e, the ARMv6-compatible processer rev 5(v6l) n jus solder it ovr the existing cpu processer.
First of all, the cpu in your phone isn't a standalone cpu like in your computer. It's a system on a chip (SoC), which means it also contains the graphics chip, all the radio (GSM, 3G, WiFi, GPS) etc.
So IF you were able to get hold of a standalone SoC like that, you would need to have your kernel and all driver-modules changed to reflect the capabilities or that particular SoC.
I really doubt that there are upgrades to the SoC in your phone that are pin-compatible with what's in it now, all the connections on the mainboard are only designed to reflect the layout and capabilities of the original SoC.
Too many variables to even make it worth trying if you ask me
Related
Just trying to figure out what's the pros and cons between a 1.5ghz single core and a 1.0ghz dual core. Like which one would be faster? Where would I notice these differences?
I'm trying to details decide between the flyer and the transformer.
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA App
While I see where you are coming from on processor speed, The processor wouldn't be what I would be most concerned about when choosing between the two. I'd be looking at the mobility issue. Flyer fits in my shorts pocket. It's hands free when not in use but available whenever needed. Transformer have to carry around in hand all the time or in a bag. It is added bulk, & I found when only using a 10" device I didn't carry it around everywhere with me. It was a couch surfer.
Back to the original question. In my experience with the Notion Ink Adam Dual Core Tegra, The Flyer blew it away speed wise when running single apps and in general operation. The Tegra chip starts catching up when running multiple processes, like switching between open internet pages and other apps all running at the same time. Majority of apps aren't built to utilize dual core for speeding up their processes.
Picking the Flyer or the view isn't about processors or operating systems it's about functionality and portability. The flyer will be there when you need it, the 10" will be on the couch when you need it.
Previous post answers it quite well. In general, a higher clocked single core CPU will be faster within a single app than a lower clocked dual core CPU (although design differences between chip manufacturers means that straight comparison between MHz is not always a reliable point of comparison). Just like with PCs several years ago, there just aren't enough dual-core phones around yet for app developers to support multiple cores in their apps. Where you will see the dual core excel, is switching between apps, running lots of background processes, etc. But eventually, as multi-core phones become more commonplace, app developers will likely add support into their apps.
Thank you gentlemen, nice to see those responses. Those replys helps me make the decision.
Thanks again,
Eyeandroid
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA App
Be sure to click the "Thanks" button on the posts that were helpful!
Maybe this will make a little sense....
Another important factor in speed is the memory, not just memory as in ram but memory as in cached memory that is built into the processor. I'm going to try to make a little diagram.
p1-->L1--L2
L3- shared ---->Ram
p2-->L1--L2
So in this diagram p1 is processor one, p2 is processor 2, and all the L1's...etc are cache.
L1 is the fastest, smallest memory cache, memory size increases as you move to L2, L3, Ram, but memory speed slows down.
Basically everytime the processor has a new task it puts that task on a stack(in one of the caches). So the faster it can unload and reload that stack then the faster the speed. Thats where processor speed comes in. So a bigger L1 cache means it can store more tasks in its stack in the fast memory cache making the machine run faster(processor can access the tasks quicker)
Now this is why the Flyer out performs so many dual cores. As someone already mentioned, most applications aren't optimized for dual cores. That means that it can only take advantage of half of the combined L1. Then on top of that, it is only 1gz so it can't unload and reload the stack as fast as a 1.5 ghz can. Does that make a little sense? Ha.
I'm not exactly sure what the hardware structure is of the tegra2s, I doubt they have an L3 cache, I'm pretty sure (99.9%) thats a quad core thing, so they probably share the L2 cache.
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:
What it's the list of the better GPS Chipset in MTK Processors.
In the past I start in Android with the FG8, a Mediatek MTK6516 416 MHz processor and with that phone I have the best GPS ever!
I can connect in only 20 second to more than 12 satelites.
Them, I have 3 phone, all with MTK6573, 650MHz+350MHz and had the worst GPS ever!
Now, I'm waiting my new phone (a Huawei) with MTK6577 (and I don't know the quality it's the GPS).
But why MTK? because I need dual-sim phones and Qualcomm don't have a lot of phone dual-sim.
So my question it's: anyone have or know a list of the best GPS Chipsets? I use a lot of offline maps and I don't have connection (wifi-3g) most part of the time)
Thanks for all for read this
I fear the difference you experienced has more to do with the other components than the MTK chipset.
Especially shape, quality and placement of the antenna is probably the big difference. Though calibration data of the antenna in the radio firmware may also matter (on the 6516 you had to take care not to loose the calibration data when you formatted flash)
And of course, the antenna is determined by the builder, and how cheap/hasty they are making the phone. For example, despite your experience, my MT6516 HD9 was not soo good at all. My MT6575 A750 is better, but not as good as my specialized Garmin GPSMAN60GS, which has a 3 cubic cm quad helix antenna. You'll never see those in a cell phone.
I suspect the actualy GPS sub-chip is pretty much the same in all modern Mediatek chips. After all, MTK was originally a GPS-only chipmaker, and have been making those for 10 years or so, so so they fixed all the early errors.
PS: There is one 'GPS' change I hope they will put on the new MT6589 chip: GLONAS support. But to repeat, I am sure all of 16, 73, 75, 77 have the same GPS sub-chip
Thanks
cybermaus said:
I fear the difference you experienced has more to do with the other components than the MTK chipset.
[..........]
PS: There is one 'GPS' change I hope they will put on the new MT6589 chip: GLONAS support. But to repeat, I am sure all of 16, 73, 75, 77 have the same GPS sub-chip
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know that details, thanks a lot for the information. I must see and search my next phone be an MTK6589 or better. I ear about Glonas of Qualcomm but I must use a dual-sim phone and Qualcomm has little amount of diversity in dual-sim smartphones.
Thanks again!
No that's not what I meant. It was just an extra remark.
In fact, as they might (so I hope) add a new GPS sub-chip in the MT6589, thats when you could see improvements, or new early adoption mistakes.
The MT6577 is a safe bet, its GPS subchip has been stable for years now and I am sure it's GPS is as good as the MT6516 was, provided the phone builder did not mess up the antenna.
My hope for Glonass is only a hope. What is known about the MT6589 is that it will be somewhat faster than the MT6577 (4 core rather then 2 core, but only A7 cores, not A9), but a lot more energy efficient (again A7 cores rather then A9)
You could wait for the MT6589, it will be a few more months, but the first models may be priced too high (shopkeepers will want to milk it) so reasonable prices may be only in March/April or so.
Thanks for the info again! I do not know that.
I think I must wait Best regards!!
(I hope too the MT6589 have a better GPS)
cybermaus said:
But to repeat, I am sure all of 16, 73, 75, 77 have the same GPS sub-chip
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, at least since MT65x3 the sub-chip used is MT6620, which integrates WLAN, BT, GPS and FM into a single chip.
cybermaus said:
I fear the difference you experienced has more to do with the other components than the MTK chipset.
Especially shape, quality and placement of the antenna is probably the big difference. Though calibration data of the antenna in the radio firmware may also matter (on the 6516 you had to take care not to loose the calibration data when you formatted flash)
And of course, the antenna is determined by the builder, and how cheap/hasty they are making the phone. For example, despite your experience, my MT6516 HD9 was not soo good at all. My MT6575 A750 is better, but not as good as my specialized Garmin GPSMAN60GS, which has a 3 cubic cm quad helix antenna. You'll never see those in a cell phone.
I suspect the actualy GPS sub-chip is pretty much the same in all modern Mediatek chips. After all, MTK was originally a GPS-only chipmaker, and have been making those for 10 years or so, so so they fixed all the early errors.
Thanks for this post it explains why my mtk6575 i phone clone gets a lock much quicker than my 6577 s3 clone clearly the attenna is placed properly in the 6575 it slightly bugs me because they both have the same GPS chip as you said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just bought a Craig cmp741e Android tablet. On the box, it says it has 1.3Ghz cpu. I rooted it. I installed System Info app, it shows my cpu can reach up to 1.3Ghz. I installed multiple overclock app, like cpu tuner, system tuner pro, etc. They all said that my cpu was set at 1Ghz originally. When I try to "overclock" even above 1.2Ghz, os crashes. How come a 1.3Ghz cpu crashes at 1.2Ghz? And how did the manufacturer rom lock a cpu at 1.0ghz? Any way to fix it?
Thanks.
just sell it and buy a new one...
Only way to "fix" it would be to install a custom kernel that has those frequencies. Off brand companies like that aren't really regulated that much. They can make pretty much any claim they want. Most people buying these things have no idea to even look for something like that or care to. The manufacturer will just chalk it up as trying to get better battery life. As far as it crashing, it might not actually be able to run at 1200. There's always certain "steps" or frequencies devices work with and setting random ones might interfere with some other processes. They also might have another script/app/process that regulates it and doesn't allow you to mod it.
Hello everyone,
I'm looking for information. I have the current use case:
My smartphone is a Sharp Aquos Zeta SH-03G with lollipop 5.0.2 (I didn't get a choice on the device I could get )
By digging a bit in the system I found out that this smartphone is configured somehow to not use the full CPU capacity. It justs use 5 cores out of 8 of the snapdragon 810 whatever the activity on the phone.
However all the core are seen as possible to use by the kernel with correct frequencies.
Only the core up to 1.5Ghz are use normally. for the core up to 2Ghz, only one is used and not at the top frequency (max 1.4Ghz)
Which make this phone to act as a 5 core up to 1.5Ghz. I'm just curious to understand where I should look like to see where that configuration is done.
Is it in the custom kernel source code? Is it some arguments given at boot time? Is it in some configuration file somewhere on one of the booting partition?
They release the source code of the kernel so I just give at least a quick check in the processor core frequency definition for a snapdragon 810 and it was looking like all is defined approprietly to use all of them. Also the system report that it really see 8 cores and that 8 cores may be use if needed...
Any help appreciated, thanks!