Related
[Discussion]
This thread is purely a discussion about our phone's processor ability to be overclocked.
Does anyone here have any idea how our beloved xperia mini/minipro/lww processor can be clock as high as 2GHz as opposed to its default clock speed(1GHz)? If you carefully goes beyond our phone subforums into the realms other phone you can see that much of the phone there can't be overclock as high as our phone can go. Eg; other phone with 1GHz processor can only be overclock to 1.3GHz.
Any ideas? Developers facts can be very helpful.
Sent from my Xperia Mini Pro using xda premium
Well 1600 mhz is stable for me,I will try 2000 mhz as soon I install supported rom.About 1300 mhz max for some models looks stupid to me,I didnt read post that says that.
Sent from my WT19i using Tapatalk
XperianPro said:
Well 1600 mhz is stable for me,I will try 2000 mhz as soon I install supported rom.About 1300 mhz max for some models looks stupid to me,I didnt read post that says that.
Sent from my WT19i using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've tried 2GHz on my phone, seems to be okay w/o any instability issue.
Fortunately our phone isn't maxed out at 1.3GHz, almost all kernel for our phone support up to 2GHz, what I meant is, phone like x10 seems to be maxed out at 1.3GHz. Just small increment from 1GHz to 1.3. While our phone can go all the way up from 1GHz to 2GHz doubling its default clock speed.
Sent from my Xperia Mini Pro using xda premium
i've only tried to run benchmarks on my phone up to 1.6GHz,
did not try higher speeds because i am worried about the CPU might break...
as per x kernel latest release, they have set the limit to just 1.8GHz.
seems that would be the safest our CPUs would reach but still its not same for all units.
i am not completely aware about the technical specifics of the CPU but it seems that it could have been made that way.
the only thing that would limit the CPU capabilities is the temperature and the battery capacity, since running an overclocked CPU on a 1200mAh battery is not that efficient.
You're not exactly correct OP.
My Active, with the OC Spartan kernel, goes up to 2Ghz on my device and its perfectly stable.
On my Desire Z however, stock Mhz is 800, and i have oc'd it to 1.9Ghz stable, thats over 140% (russian election pun not intended ) oc. It is one of the most highly overclockable devices yet.
So it's not only our devices that go to 100% of stock speeds. Ill remind you that companies, take some "malfuncioning" processor chips that might have a specific part of them not working, lower their speeds to make them stable chips, and then ship them out to manufacturing.
That is why some devices dont go over 1.9Ghz. Its just a matter of quality of the CPU. I know this because back in the days of the ATI9500, which was actually a ATI9700Pro, just underclocked because a pipeline was malfunctioning, so instead of throwing them away, they locked the pipeline and sold them as a lower budget Video Card. With some tools though you could unlock the pipeline and if you were lucky you could have an ATI9700Pro in the price of a ATI9500
I have one question while we are on this topic.
Our phones have MSM8225 chipset while the Arc S has MSM8255T (clocked at 1.4 GHz). I'm curious, is there any noticeable difference between these two chipsets? If there isn't why aren't our phones clocked at 1GHz?
The reason these go by 8255 and 8255T are stated in the post i made above. Same chips, different quality. It seems that not all 8255 can be stable up to 1.4-1.5Ghz, so they released a cheaper 8255 line that is clocked at 1Ghz.
dumraden said:
The reason these go by 8255 and 8255T are stated in the post i made above. Same chips, different quality. It seems that not all 8255 can be stable up to 1.4-1.5Ghz, so they released a cheaper 8255 line that is clocked at 1Ghz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are completely right but I have to say that architecture has something to do as well on my old x10 mini arm6 I had a 600 MHz processor going at Max of 800 and something and now my lww arm7 can go as high as 2 ghz lol.
ginryu said:
You are completely right but I have to say that architecture has something to do as well on my old x10 mini arm6 I had a 600 MHz processor going at Max of 800 and something and now my lww arm7 can go as high as 2 ghz lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The maximum CPU clock frequency is placed by kernel developer, what he thinks is fine. It is not that phone's CPU can really put up with that high clock frequency.
Someguyfromhell said:
The maximum CPU clock frequency is placed by kernel developer, what he thinks is fine. It is not that phone's CPU can really put up with that high clock frequency.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure then the cpu had nothing to do when you clock a 600 mhz cpu to 845 mhz and it crashes?? come on that is a lame thing to say in this thread
ginryu said:
Sure then the cpu had nothing to do when you clock a 600 mhz cpu to 845 mhz and it crashes?? come on that is a lame thing to say in this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I ment, was that the actual maximal overclock frequency, where you can set it, is set by kernel developer.
You can set the CPU max frequency 1Ghz, 1.2Ghz, whatever. But the really maximum, which you can set, for example 2Ghz in Rage Kernel, 1.8Ghz in X Kernel, is set by kernel developer.
It is not tested that phone can put up with that high frequency. That is your own responsibility to try and risk.
Imagine cpus being made like cookies.Although you use the same ingredients not all cookies are baked the same, not matter how good your oven is.Cpus get out of the "oven" and tested for stability.The less stable are clocked lower, the more stable higher and that depends from the voltage they need to run and the maximum safe temperature that is allowed so the chip can last long time.So they say that chips which fall between A and B specifications (temp voltage etc...) are going to clocked to 1 GHz and those that range between C and D to 1.4 GHz.But those who are close to A are not the same as B, same with C and D.That's why some cpus clock better than others even though they're clocked at the same speed.At least that's how computer cpus were made if i recall correctly.
Its marketing trick.
Why should I buy WT19i when I can buy Arc S with higher clock rate.
Same processor because if processor is diffrent they would need to make new S1Boot,if in arc s is new bootloader patch wont work.
Sent from my WT19i using Tapatalk
is there any option to raise SGS3 CPU to 2000mhz or something like that?
EDIT: NEW AS 14/7
kk so i guess the highest and most stablest cpu might be till 1800mhz
1and what about ram? there is any overclocking for ram memory? (couldnt find anything about it)
2what about GPU?
not yet, i think the highest clock right now is 1.5 for the sgs3
and RAM, NO you can not get MORE ram, you can eliminate apps that eating up ram to free some up but no way to get more ram.
is there any need to overclock this beast lol its fast enough
the2rrell said:
not yet, i think the highest clock right now is 1.5 for the sgs3
and RAM, NO you can not get MORE ram, you can eliminate apps that eating up ram to free some up but no way to get more ram.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He wasn't referring to getting more RAM though was he? It read to me that he wanted to see if was possible to increase the clock speed of the RAM along with the CPU.
yep just wondering if there is any option for that as in SGS1+2
do you guys think when there is OC for s3, it will raise CPU to 2000MHz ?
darixtorento said:
yep just wondering if there is any option for that as in SGS1+2
do you guys think when there is OC for s3, it will raise CPU to 2000MHz ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Already there OC/UV running 1500Mhz right now. Max 1800Mhz.
Look into de developers topics for the kernel..
Ive looked there.. stiil misunderstand something-
there is any OC of 2000mhz now?
Note that the Exynos 4Core CPU is still not very well understood and may well get long-time damage when ramping up the clock speed aggressively.
Is there actually ANY need for going so high except to show off?
You'll be measuring any speed improvement in loading things up in microseconds because people say Samsung still hasn't fully optimised the phone to the OS yet, so I think it's a bit pointless stressing the phone that much.
1.8GHZ is currently the max however with kmemhelper you should be able to change the last frequency to 2.0...
Hell I'll even find out the script for you if you are mad enough to try it first
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
I doubt you'll get it 2GHz stable anyway. From what I've heard most people have theirs crap out at 1.8GHz.
kk so i guess the highest and most stablest cpu might be till 1800mhz
1and what about ram? there is any overclocking for ram memory? (couldnt find anything about it)
2what about GPU?
to make it clear:
i wanna know which ram overclocking is available to do on the SGS3 as long as the device still stables.
same with GPU and all those stuff.. there is a really good lvl of OC like in S1 S2?
still waiting for help
I would go for Siyah kernel and try 1.8 GHz then under volt using voltage control or extweaks app. Most phones can go 100 mv on all steps except maybe the very highest clocks.
gpu overclock is not possible yet
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
OC of the ram is connected to bus speed and this is very different to the fixed bus in the sgs1 so nothing like live oc is possible. Still 400 mhz bus speed is 4 times faster than the CHAt!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
I`am running RGUI v7 rom and siyah kernel 1.3.8a. My clockspeed is 1600 Mhz and is rockstable, snappy and battery life is great.
I don`t go any higher for daily use, it doesn`t make much difference in speed and i think it cuts down your cpu-life.
ho so no LIVE OC is available now? (like in S1 and s2)?
well hoping it will be possible to add those functions(live oc, ram, cpu, and more..) in Android JB 4.1
My Captivate (SGS1) can hit 1.92GHz... So I think that a CPU with a stock clock of 1.4GHz can hit 2GHz easily. We will just have to see. I am not pushing this phone though. I don't have $700 to replace it.
well hoping it will be possible to add those functions(live oc, ram, cpu, and more..) in Android JB 4.1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not depended on the ROM but on whether the hardware allows to modify the values and if kernel developers figure out how to do it.
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
Im Only Bothered About The Speed
Which is Faster S5 OR Alpha ??
I want to get the alpha but theres hardly no custom roms for it
should i get s5 ?
The 850f has a score of more than 50.000 in the antutu benchmark, beating the S5 and the note 4 if that's important for you.
I bought the alpha because it looks a lot better than the cheap plastic looking S5.
Gray44 said:
The 850f has a score of more than 50.000 in the antutu benchmark, beating the S5 and the note 4 if that's important for you.
I bought the alpha because it looks a lot better than the cheap plastic looking S5.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alpha Exynos 5 Octa 5430 version
S5 got s801 and Exynos 5422 while Alpha got s801 and Exynos 5430 variables. Both got 2GB ram. Performance-wise is Alpha much faster because it only used 720P screen, especially with the Exynos 5430 one. Though Note4 comes with Eynos 5433 but the 2K screen hogging the CPU/GPU power, in real life performance Note3 is even faster than Note4.
------------------------ said:
Im Only Bothered About The Speed
Which is Faster S5 OR Alpha ??
I want to get the alpha but theres hardly no custom roms for it
should i get s5 ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even thou the S5 gives lower score on antutu it doesnt mean its slower than alpha. The exynos version of alpha has octa core cpu which makes it alot more efficient in multi core processing but its only clocked 1.3/1.8 Mhz, while the S5 quad core is clocked at 2.5 Mhz and that gives a little advantage in single core processing.
Sent from my SM-G850F
tileeq said:
Even thou the S5 gives lower score on antutu it doesnt mean its slower than alpha. The exynos version of alpha has octa core cpu which makes it alot more efficient in multi core processing but its only clocked 1.3/1.8 Mhz, while the S5 quad core is clocked at 2.5 Mhz and that gives a little advantage in single core processing.
Sent from my SM-G850F
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not only the clock speed is important, but also architecture, implementation and manufacturing method and process size (The thing is usually written in nanometers ). All these factors are better on Exynos 5430 than on SD801, so single core performance Exynos alpha should be comparable to SD801 Galaxy S5. :good:
toms95 said:
Not only the clock speed is important, but also architecture, implementation and manufacturing method and process size (The thing is usually written in nanometers ). All these factors are better on Exynos 5430 than on SD801, so single core performance Exynos alpha should be comparable to SD801 Galaxy S5. :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SM-G850W using XDA Free mobile app
I actually own a Galaxy A5, but theres no forum so i was wondering if your alphas go to lower frequencies. My A5 does not get any lower than 800mhz=O
cpu spy shows the existing 200 and 533mhz frequencies but they are never used! Dont know why Samsung decided to do this honestly...
im running an ARM7 in my Alpha, and it idles at 300mhz...
51 Pegasi said:
im running an ARM7 in my Alpha, and it idles at 300mhz...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, the alpha has a different cpu, don't know why Samsung f*cked up the A5. My A5 does not use 200, 400 and 533mhz steps. It idles at 800mhz lol. And I'm not the only one, I have contacted another member here on xda and it happens the same with his A5
500 on the little and 800 on the BIG ones here.
Sent from my SM-G850F