What is the difference in battery lifetime between the dual core and quad core versions of the S3? I currently have a quad core S3 right now. Would it be wiser if I sell the quad and get a dual core from the US instead?
kevindd992002 said:
What is the difference in battery lifetime between the dual core and quad core versions of the S3? I currently have a quad core S3 right now. Would it be wiser if I sell the quad and get a dual core from the US instead?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what about keeping the quad-core and buy an extended battery if you worry about the battery life?
kulisap said:
what about keeping the quad-core and buy an extended battery if you worry about the battery life?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't like that choice but thanks for the suggestion
kevindd992002 said:
What is the difference in battery lifetime between the dual core and quad core versions of the S3? I currently have a quad core S3 right now. Would it be wiser if I sell the quad and get a dual core from the US instead?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mugen do a 2300mah battery that fits the S3 with working NFC for £30
Selling a quad core to buy a dual core is a dumb idea
First off: note that there are lots of different versions with the same "S3" name, most of which probably are not and never will be compatible to your current carrier's network.
The i9300 uses hotplug technology to completely shut down cores when their processing power is not needed and re-awake them whenever you open a CPU-intensive application. So in the bottom line it does not drain more battery unless you actually need more power than the other one can deliver.
d4fseeker said:
First off: note that there are lots of different versions with the same "S3" name, most of which probably are not and never will be compatible to your current carrier's network.
The i9300 uses hotplug technology to completely shut down cores when their processing power is not needed and re-awake them whenever you open a CPU-intensive application. So in the bottom line it does not drain more battery unless you actually need more power than the other one can deliver.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't have to be CPU intensive application, it can be a normal application that will use all cores, each at not maximum frequency.
Sent from my Galaxy SIII
The only thing I like about the dual core versions is that they come with 2GB of ram, which should be standard for a Top End phone, specially with the amount of software that Samsung puts on their phones.
Of course, I know the dual cores are Cortex 15 which is a newer core but I don't value that as much as I do the 2GB ram.
Other than that, I'm really happy with my SGS 3 (international version, unlocked)
You can always downgrade with custom kernels whenever you want
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
d4fseeker said:
First off: note that there are lots of different versions with the same "S3" name, most of which probably are not and never will be compatible to your current carrier's network.
The i9300 uses hotplug technology to completely shut down cores when their processing power is not needed and re-awake them whenever you open a CPU-intensive application. So in the bottom line it does not drain more battery unless you actually need more power than the other one can deliver.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're saying that the quad-core is as good as the dual core in terms of battery lifetime?
But I thought all S3's are compatible for all 2G/3G networks around the world?
dual core has a longer battery life
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Edward Zhuang said:
dual core has a longer battery life
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not necessarily. Everyone is using their phone differently. Every battery produced in factory is also not 100% identical. So basically no point trying to compare between dual or quad.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
kevindd992002 said:
So you're saying that the quad-core is as good as the dual core in terms of battery lifetime?
But I thought all S3's are compatible for all 2G/3G networks around the world?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I'm saying that what I like most about the dual cores is the 2GB of ram they come with. I'm comfortable with the battery life of my quad so I don't complain about it, and don't even wonder about what the duals can do.
I had a SGS 2 (still do) and even with the pumped processor (and slightly bigger battery) this one still lasts more that a day of relatively heavy use so battery life is not a problem. Maybe the new duals cortex A15 have better battery life than this quads, maybe not so much BUT, they're not quads :laugh: and that was a good selling point (for me).
If Samsung had put the same 2GB of ram on the quads (like they did for the Korean version -envy-) then no one would want a dual, and no one would complain about battery life -or even wonder about it-, but they didn't.
If you ask me, the best phone to come will have 2GB ram (LG has announced already and Xiaomi too with the Mi2 coming October), then our quad SGS 3 will come short, that's my only complaint.
Arsaw said:
Not necessarily. Everyone is using their phone differently. Every battery produced in factory is also not 100% identical. So basically no point trying to compare between dual or quad.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also to the point where the dual core has lte which destroys your battery.
The dualcore one uses a qualcoomm krait cpu which is based upon cortex a15 unlike the quad exynos which is based upon the cortex a9 cores. The a15 architecture is by design depending on the task to do up to more than 100% faster as compared to the a9 in single core and single threaded tasks. So speed wise they are quite equal, while the exynos has a better gpu, the krait is made in 28nm, while the exynos is made in 32nm, so to make the story short: in theory the dualcore should be as fast as the quad, while using less power, assuming both have the same battery, the dual should last longer in theory, but i havent seen any thorough comparison tests of it until now.
crnkoj said:
The dualcore one uses a qualcoomm krait cpu which is based upon cortex a15 unlike the quad exynos which is based upon the cortex a9 cores. The a15 architecture is by design depending on the task to do up to more than 100% faster as compared to the a9 in single core and single threaded tasks. So speed wise they are quite equal, while the exynos has a better gpu, the krait is made in 28nm, while the exynos is made in 32nm, so to make the story short: in theory the dualcore should be as fast as the quad, while using less power, assuming both have the same battery, the dual should last longer in theory, but i havent seen any thorough comparison tests of it until now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In theory is the most important thing here. And, for every app that can use all 4 cores the quad will have the upper hand. I've seen the reviews and the SGS III still manages to beat the duals (A15) in general performance tests.
That's why the new top dogs will use 4 Cortex A15, and 2GB ram configurations, those will be unbeatable.
Still, LTE on the duals will kill all battery life differences.
Edward Zhuang said:
dual core has a longer battery life
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree. 2 cores process a task longer--longer time=longer battery usage. Shorter time for 4 cores--4 cores=high battery usage. Am i making sense?
Quad core mdrr le truc qui sert a rien sur un phone, ce n'est que mon humble avis
Envoyé depuis mon GT-I9100 avec Tapatalk
sker83 said:
Quad core mdrr le truc qui sert a rien sur un phone, ce n'est que mon humble avis
Envoyé depuis mon GT-I9100 avec Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In English please. This is an International forum/community.
kulisap said:
In English please. This is an International forum/community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's English. Just the letters are mixed up a bit...
Sent from my Galaxy SIII
crnkoj said:
The dualcore one uses a qualcoomm krait cpu which is based upon cortex a15 unlike the quad exynos which is based upon the cortex a9 cores. The a15 architecture is by design depending on the task to do up to more than 100% faster as compared to the a9 in single core and single threaded tasks. So speed wise they are quite equal, while the exynos has a better gpu, the krait is made in 28nm, while the exynos is made in 32nm, so to make the story short: in theory the dualcore should be as fast as the quad, while using less power, assuming both have the same battery, the dual should last longer in theory, but i havent seen any thorough comparison tests of it until now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong.
The krait is not pure a-15.
The exynos is not pure a-9.
If anything the both meet somewhere in the middle, the exynos is built on a smaller die than standard a-9's and a 128bit instruction set (a-15) and is fabricated using HKMG process (reduces power leakage by up to 50% if my memory serves me right)
The krait is still using the older, less efficient Lsion process and is nowhere near as good as HKMG.
Samsung have tweaked the sh*t out of the exynos 4412 and it has been around for a while, the krait is new tech, not nearly as much time to optimise it.
Now another point is that development on the US version is nowhere near the level of development for the international and has a lesser GPU and DAC.
I wouldn't trade for anything.
Well in saying that I'd like 2gb of ram, but with this SOC.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Related
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.
I picked up my Galaxy SII after seeing the disappointing specs on the iPhone 4S. But today I read preliminary benchmarks and it smokes the SII.
Sorry, unable to post a link yet.
How can a 800 mhz cpu beat the SII's 1.2 ghz processor?
I am confused. Am I missing something?
026TB4U said:
I picked up my Galaxy SII after seeing the disappointing specs on the iPhone 4S. But today I read preliminary benchmarks and it smokes the SII.
Sorry, unable to post a link yet.
How can a 800 mhz cpu beat the SII's 1.2 ghz processor?
I am confused. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because benchmarks don't mean jack ****.
Look at how Quadrant scores are all over the damned place with no correspondence to actual usability.
its all about the software. I expect some good gains when moving over to ICS.
Edit, corrected iPhone processor family name.
Trying to benchmark across different operating systems and hardware is not easy to accomplish, but I can tell you that an (Apple A5) A9 800 mhz duel core Samsung processor is not faster than (Exynos) A9 1.2 ghz duel core Samsung processor.
Yes both phones processors are made by Samsung
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
Entropy512 said:
Because benchmarks don't mean jack ****.
Look at how Quadrant scores are all over the damned place with no correspondence to actual usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 10 char
dayv said:
Trying to benchmark across different operating systems and hardware is not easy to accomplish, but I can tell you that an A5 800 mhz duel core Samsung processor is not faster than A9 1.2 ghz duel core Samsung processor.
Yes both phones processors are made by Samsung
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true but your wording is a bit confusing. An "Apple A5" processor is a dual core a9 processor with a powervr 543mp2 gpu. An A5 processor is an Arm core made for ultra low power. Basically both the apple a5 and the exynos processor have have the same processor architecture but there are many other factors that can influence performance like the GPU, memory, cache, decoders, ect. In this case i think the main discrepancy will be the software thats so different between the two.
footballrunner800 said:
This is true but your wording is a bit confusing. An "Apple A5" processor is a dual core a9 processor with a powervr 543mp2 gpu. An A5 processor is an Arm core made for ultra low power. Basically both the apple a5 and the exynos processor have have the same processor architecture but there are many other factors that can influence performance like the GPU, memory, cache, decoders, ect. In this case i think the main discrepancy will be the software thats so different between the two.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did not doubt that both processors were of the same type and architecture, but I did not realize that apple A5 was just an apple brand and that both processors were A9. Both are still Samsung family processor one clocked at 800 mhz one clocked at 1.2 GHz
Thank you for the correction
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
The iPhone is probably utilizing the processor to it's full extent, while Gingerbread (and Android in general) does a terrible job of utilizing the power of the hardware.
ICS should see a nice performance increase on dual cores.
OP is probably refering to the benchmark for gaming. It's not the processor that lacks on GS2. If iPhone 4S does come with the same A5 as iPad2, its GPU will smoke Mali400 in GS2 in almost every benchmark test (in most benchmarks, it is twice as fast as Mali400). Just checkout the review of Internationl GS2 by Anandtech.com with benchmark comparison of GS2 vs iPad2 and other smartphones. It is not the Quadrant or Linkpack benchmark but rather the professional benchmarks measuring fill rates and triangle thoughputs etc.
Processor performance wise, it is probably a wash because both are based on the same ARM design.
Although I do agree that benchmarks are just benchmarks, I am still surprised.
Is it true that Gingerbread only utilizes one cpu? And will Ice Cream Sandwich utilize both?
And BTW, I am by no means an Apple fanboy. I had been waiting for this phone to come out to replace my dinosaur BB 9000, so I wouldn't have to get an iPhone and deal with iTunes.
iOS5 > gingerbread. Sad but true.
Hope ICS comes out soon. It seems to be on par from what I hear.
Sent from my Galaxy S II using Tapatalk
I think I saw the benchmark in question - it was a GPU-heavy benchmark for a workload that most users won't experience 99% of the time. (It was a GPU-bound OpenGL benchmark. The GPU of the iPhone 4S IS faster than ours for 3D work - but unless you do lots of 3D gaming, it's wasted. Also, 3D is kind of a waste on a 3.5" screen.)
Apple has an extremely long history of misleading the public with selective benchmarking. Back in the Pentium II or III days, they claimed one of their machines was twice as fast as an Intel machine clocked at least 50% higher. While I agree that MHz isn't everything, there's a limit to that. In that case, on a single Photoshop benchmark that was optimized for PowerPC by using AltiVec and running non-optimized on the Intel chip (despite an optimized MMX or SSE implementation being available), the Apple did better - and Apple used that to try and make users believe the machine was twice as fast for all workloads.
026TB4U said:
Is it true that Gingerbread only utilizes one cpu? And will Ice Cream Sandwich utilize both?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is true.
I guess the benchmarking was for the javascript using safari browser. So it's apple vs oranges. Also completely 2 different OS. Let's run quadrant if it's available for iOS the see how it handles. In the mean time enjoy the best and fastest smartphone currently in the market no matter what other says.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
It could be ten times faster than a GII, but it still has a 3.5" screen, and I-jail. My wife and kids have Iphone 4's and there is no way I would trade no matter how fast this new one is.
aintwaven said:
It could be ten times faster than a GII, but it still has a 3.5" screen, and I-jail. My wife and kids have Iphone 4's and there is no way I would trade no matter how fast this new one is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for the wife and kids part(I have neither) this. Very much this.
Just ran the SunSpider Javascript on CM7.1. Results seem to be quite a bit better than the ones I see posted on AnandTech. Obviously they were running the GS2 stock but I was surprised to see my numbers so low. Also did the GLBenchmark and while the Egypt was slower, the Pro was faster on CM7.1. Coin flip to me it seems...
Those are just plain synthetic benchmark, what does it mean for RL usage? not a damn thing.
You think all the fashionnista who's buying iphone 4s gonna care how fast their CPU are?
footballrunner800 said:
its all about the software. I expect some good gains when moving over to ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the problem with android; it is always wait for the next version of software, it'll be better then. How about making a good version now?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
arctia said:
iOS5 > gingerbread. Sad but true.
Hope ICS comes out soon. It seems to be on par from what I hear.
Sent from my Galaxy S II using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you high and drunk?? As far as I'm aware, iOS5 is just playing catch up to Android. There isn't one feature that they implemented that hasn't already been introduced in Android since the Froyo days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUEG7kQegSA&feature=share
I need your suggestions. Can any one please make me understand the which is the best processor from Exynos 4212 Quad, NVDIA tegra 3, Snapdragon 4 dual and why?
Please tell me. That will be very helpful to me
From benchmarks, the Exynos CPU was quite a bit better than the other two, and the Mali GPU in the S3 also out-performed the others as far as I can remember. Search for some benchmarks comparing them to find out for yourself.
It should go this way:
Processing power: Exynos 4412 Quad > Qualcom S4 Krait > Nvidia Tegra 3 Quad
GPU power: Mali400 GPU > Adreno 225 >= ULP GeForce
But i read somewhere that S4 Krait CPU which is based on ARM Cortex A15 chips could offer more power without consuming as much energy than the two Quad core beasts.
My first thought when I heard about Nvidias 4+1 CPU was, how can it decide when to switch from single to quad core?? This sounds to me like a prototype for a constantly lagging device.
But I'm not as deep in this matter as to make a qualified statement.
It is just a feeling, since neither Intel ,AMD, Qualcomm or Samsung build their CPUs like this.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
Coming off a Tegra 2 device and patiently waiting this Verizon version of this phone all I can say is Tegra is terrible. At least on my phone it was, heating up on simple tasks like browsing homescreen.
harise100 said:
My first thought when I heard about Nvidias 4+1 CPU was, how can it decide when to switch from single to quad core?? This sounds to me like a prototype for a constantly lagging device.
But I'm not as deep in this matter as to make a qualified statement.
It is just a feeling, since neither Intel ,AMD, Qualcomm or Samsung build their CPUs like this.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It actually works very well, the standby time on this phone is the best I've ever seen. It's needed though, because this chip is thirsty. Whether that's down to poor drivers or the design I don't know. Maybe a bit of both. Anyway I like Tegra 3, it IS very fast and you have those Tegra 3 games. Just look at Dark Meadow, the graphics are amazing and it runs smooth as hell.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
I can't imagine how this ever will work without occasional lags.
How does the task scheduler on a tegra 3 predict when to activate the 4 cores ?
Starting an app and wait whether it will need more power will lead to a lag, when it maxes out the single core.
It's not 4+1 but rather 1+4.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
harise100 said:
I can't imagine how this ever will work without occasional lags.
How does the task scheduler on a tegra 3 predict when to activate the 4 cores ?
Starting an app and wait whether it will need more power will lead to a lag, when it maxes out the single core.
It's not 4+1 but rather 1+4.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea how it works, as the fifth core is handled directly by the soc and not the system. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can shed some light on this. I haven't encountered any noticeable lags compared to my SII though.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Finally the search tool works, anyways thanks for clearing my doubts between the differences of the two quad cores.
Hey guys, bit of a noob question here but nevertheless i shall ask it anyway
So as we know the samsung galaxy s3 has a quad core processor which churns out 1.4ghz which is rather fast!
But ive only seen the overclocking abilities for it to run at 1.7ghz max? Why is this? the galaxy note can run at 1.9ghz via dual core.
my question is this, why cant is run at over 2ghz? i mean 1.4 is enough but id like to say "my phone can run the same speed as my laptop"
Sorry for the noob-ish question but if anyone would reply, it would be great
Jack.
I've yet see a phone that can open the http://www.theverge.com/ at a decent speed.
I overcloceked to 1.6Mhz and still didn't make any difference.
Why would you want to run at 2.0Mhz?
Running at that speed would juts increase battery usage and overheat the CPU.
Ah right, yeah it even took my computer like 10seconds to load that site!
why wouldnt you want a phone to run at over 2ghz? admittedly your right about the overheat and battery life
For that exact reason...heat and battery life. What more reason would you need. For most instances its unnecessary. Isn't saying its quad core enough...
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
It will be faster wait for jellybean its optimized for more cores
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
The same applies to pc chips, more cores mean more heat. It's why many current dual and quad core chips are faster than the newer hex and 8 core chips. Less cores means more room for heat tolerances.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
LowSky said:
The same applies to pc chips, more cores mean more heat. It's why many current dual and quad core chips are faster than the newer hex and 8 core chips. Less cores means more room for heat tolerances.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The reason dual and quad cores are faster is because of the limitation of software and how multithreaded it can be (and there will be a point of diminishing returns which will be a lot sooner for basic programs).
I have a dual core 3ghz pc and my new pc is just 2.8ghz quad i7.... My old pc must be much faster!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
jhericurls said:
I've yet see a phone that can open the http://www.theverge.com/ at a decent speed.
I overcloceked to 1.6Mhz and still didn't make any difference.
Why would you want to run at 2.0Mhz?
Running at that speed would juts increase battery usage and overheat the CPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It seems the SGS3 can open and scroll through http://www.theverge.com/ very fast, I've just tested it.
Is it not fast enough on yours?
JackHanAnLG said:
Hey guys, bit of a noob question here but nevertheless i shall ask it anyway
So as we know the samsung galaxy s3 has a quad core processor which churns out 1.4ghz which is rather fast!
But ive only seen the overclocking abilities for it to run at 1.7ghz max? Why is this? the galaxy note can run at 1.9ghz via dual core.
my question is this, why cant is run at over 2ghz? i mean 1.4 is enough but id like to say "my phone can run the same speed as my laptop"
Sorry for the noob-ish question but if anyone would reply, it would be great
Jack.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
norpan111 said:
I have a dual core 3ghz pc and my new pc is just 2.8ghz quad i7.... My old pc must be much faster!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I lol'd. 1.7ghz quad is leaps and bounds better than 1.9ghz dual. 1.7 and 1.9 ghz isn't that big of a leap, but 2 cores versus 4 cores is pretty significant. Jelly Bean improves multi-core processors so the SGS3 International version is going to be even more sick-nasty (in a good way) once that rolls out.
Chaos Residue said:
I lol'd. 1.7ghz quad is leaps and bounds better than 1.9ghz dual. 1.7 and 1.9 ghz isn't that big of a leap, but 2 cores versus 4 cores is pretty significant. Jelly Bean improves multi-core processors so the SGS3 International version is going to be even more sick-nasty (in a good way) once that rolls out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
NIK516 said:
It will be faster wait for jellybean its optimized for more cores
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it isn't. Not anymore than ICS.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
I dont know why u compairing a desktop pc to galaxy s3. A pc will win hands down but I have a fairly upto date pc. And since got this phone i never really use it unless doing video editing. This phone is great and is as good as a standarded laptop If not better. This speed is brilliant to, maybe jelly bean will make a great phone greater. And another thing apps for this phone weather it be media or web browsing etc isn't really pushing this phone to the limit. So give it a while might see a bigger improvement.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
There is more to CPU performance than the clock frequency, core efficiency is the key here.
E.g. Intel P4 processor -v- Intel 'Conroe' Processors.
The newer Conroe processors were smashing the granny out of the older P4 processor despite the significant lower clock speed. Does that mean the newer processors are inferior? No, it just means each clock cycle handles more instructions.
If you want willy waving rights about how awesome your phone is go buy an iPhone and check if theres an app for that.
joshnichols189 said:
NIK516 said:
It will be faster wait for jellybean its optimized for more cores
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it isn't. Not anymore than ICS.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android 4.1 Jelly Bean
In "Project Butter," Google has worked to improve graphical performance and touch responsiveness. On the graphics side, Android is now v-synced at 60 frames a second, with triple-buffered graphics. The result is that scrolling, paging, and animations are all smoother and consistent.
To make touch feel better, Google is making it anticipatory, so that the touch data applications receive corresponds to where fingers will be the next time the screen is redrawn. This means that apps won't have to be one step behind where the user's fingers actually are. Jelly Bean will also immediately ramp CPUs to their full speed whenever touch interaction is detected. This avoids lag caused by slower processing when the CPUs are in low power modes.
For developers, the Jelly Bean SDK will include a new profiling tool, systrace, that provides a clear visualization of their applications' use of the CPU, GPU, and other system components, so that bottlenecks can be more readily identified and resolved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing specifically says "Jelly Bean is optimized for multi-core processors". That said, that entire article shows that Jelly Bean was brought about with processors in mind. You really think Google is going to make an OS that will "ramp CPUs to their full speed whenever touch interaction is detected," and "include a new profiling tool" that shows applications "use of the CPU" but not make sure it's going to be optimized for dual and quad-core devices? Also, keep this in mind:
Jelly Bean Lite
Jelly Bean Lite: Android OS definitely works efficiently on high-end dual-core phones. However, when it comes to lower end devices, the performance, reportedly, becomes very poor. Many users have also urged Google to release a lighter version of Android OS for midrange and lower end smartphones to rid themselves of the problem of performance of OS.
Rumors are already rife that Google will release a lighter version (Jelly Bean Lite) for smartphones with limited CPU and storage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say you're probably wrong about Jelly Bean not being optimized for multi-core devices.
What really matters to the average person is that in real life use the S3 really isn't that much faster than S2, so until we get an OS optimised for those extra cores all we really gonna have is the "My processor's bigger than your processor" bragging rights.
Michael_P said:
What really matters to the average person is that in real life use the S3 really isn't that much faster than S2, so until we get an OS optimised for those extra cores all we really gonna have is the "My processor's bigger than your processor" bragging rights.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Benchmark scores do show that it's a decent difference in the S2 versus the S3, though overall I would have to agree with you. But Jelly Bean will definitely be closer to the mark than Ice Cream Sandwich in terms of CPU optimization. That's my personal opinion based on my above comment of course.
JackHanAnLG said:
why wouldnt you want a phone to run at over 2ghz? admittedly your right about the overheat and battery life
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because I paid a lot for this phone and don't want it to break.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
I wonder why we take the matter with Overcloacken so important. as far as I know there are no games or apps which support the 4 cores. we should wait. I'm curious
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: