Related
Hi im thinking of doing a overclock to 1.5 ghz is it safe for the processor and the battery life witch already sucks. has anyone on here whos done it using setcpu and the rom had any problems after doing so ? and how much faster is 1.5 ghz compared to 1.2 ghz on the galaxy s2 ? and is it safe in general for the hardware of the phone will the phone get hotter or have over heating problems ? also what should my settings be for minimum maximum and the voltages ?
Of course oc is going to make ur battery life a lot worse.
Sent from my Inspire 4G using xda premium
I haven' used Setcpu in a while but I believe it's got a feature to stress test the settings to see if it can handle it. Generally the worst that happens is it'll crash. So long as it doesn't get hot. Heat=death for electronics :')
I'm using tegrak (from market) to overclock to 1.4. I found 1.5 was too unstable. Noticeable difference between 1.2 & 1.4 is almost none. Also voltage increase of 50mv was needed to gain stability. There is not much point of overclocking the device IMO unless like me u just get some satisfaction out of knowing its running faster!
Sparksltd said:
I'm using tegrak (from market) to overclock to 1.4. I found 1.5 was too unstable. Noticeable difference between 1.2 & 1.4 is almost none. Also voltage increase of 50mv was needed to gain stability. There is not much point of overclocking the device IMO unless like me u just get some satisfaction out of knowing its running faster!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true. I see no difference between 1.2 & 1.5ghz. But that doesn't keep me from running it at 1.5 when I'm playing a game anyway :'D
Sent from my Inspire 4G using xda premium
GMoneyDTP said:
Hi im thinking of doing a overclock to 1.5 ghz is it safe for the processor and the battery life witch already sucks. has anyone on here whos done it using setcpu and the rom had any problems after doing so ? and how much faster is 1.5 ghz compared to 1.2 ghz on the galaxy s2 ? and is it safe in general for the hardware of the phone will the phone get hotter or have over heating problems ? also what should my settings be for minimum maximum and the voltages ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it's not safe, that I can say. Nothing is safe when you don't know what other things are changing with the clock rate. But still you could do that. You just have to make sure that the temperature is within limit, it will be definitely high, but make sure it's not that high.
And upping the clock rate to 1.5 GHz won't drain any extra battery than 1.2 GHz.
Regards.
GMoneyDTP said:
Hi im thinking of doing a overclock to 1.5 ghz is it safe for the processor and the battery life witch already sucks. has anyone on here whos done it using setcpu and the rom had any problems after doing so ? and how much faster is 1.5 ghz compared to 1.2 ghz on the galaxy s2 ? and is it safe in general for the hardware of the phone will the phone get hotter or have over heating problems ? also what should my settings be for minimum maximum and the voltages ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried the overclocking and each phone is different, increase then test, there are many benchmarking apps out there, I was stable at 1.4, my kernel does not include 1.5 GHz, and irregardless of what people may say, running the phone at higher clock speeds consistently DOES drain the battery more than 1.2GHz, unless you have found a way to manipulate the laws of physics. I don't see how one can fathom the thought that you can get a faster CPU at absolutely no cost.
Many people think when the CPU running faster means you complete tasks faster, hence 1.5 would complete a task faster than 1.2 and hence save battery, but I believe we use this phone as more than a calculator, so when you are performing a task that causes the CPU to run at 1.5 for a period of time e.g playing a game, browsing or whatever you do with your phone, then the CPU has to draw more power to keep the frequency at 1.5 as compared to the CPU running at 1.2
All in all, I dialed back because I was doing fine without it and I did not need it, other people may need it, and I wasn't gaining anything. to answer your question directly, it all depends on what you do with your phone, I'm not a huge gamer or anything and the 1.2GHz has proven to be more than enough for me to have a very pleasant experience using this device
Using it occasionally is safe, unless you stress your mobile at 1.5+ ghz for more than an hour or so.
The cpu governor will only make use of higher frequencies when there is a need, so mostly you will see your mobile idling at 200 mhz.
HTCinspiration said:
Of course oc is going to make ur battery life a lot worse.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not necessarily a lot worse. It depends on how you are using your phone, and what is causing it to run fast. If overclocking allows the phone to spend longer in deep sleep state, your battery will win. If its games, and by OC you achieve a higher frame rate, then the phone is doing more work, and this will be reflected in the battery life going down.
Most of the time, screen on is going to dominate. If you are a low screen-on user, I guess there is more chance for a higher max_cpu to be beneficial (it won't be used unless there is a task that requires it). More accurately, it helps some of the time, so the net result is not always obvious to predict.
How about undervolting?
Any danger in doing so- other than crashing when voltage is too low?
Before over clocking it might be worth downloading cpuspy from the market and seeing what time you spend in each speed.
Chances are most of the time you won't even hit 1.2 so might not have anything to gain by over clocking.
Then again I dont know how you use your device but I do know I was surprised when I found out.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
I've played with the SuperSonic version of this phone (which has a 1.5Ghz core) and the results from photos/video are much better, I'm pretty sure the cameras are exactly the same but the SuperSonic benefits from the higher CPU.
I think it would be cool if somebody could write an app that states
IF user opens Camera application voltage + clock speed is increased to allow stable 1.5GHz speed
WHEN user closes camera application overclock turns off.
Thoughts?
You have a smartphone! Not a pc!
I didnt see any advantage if you oc to 1.5
Btw In normal use your phone keep in 200mhz not 1.2.
I think i only hit 1.2 two or 3 times for 3 seconds in a full battery cycle.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
oc dosnt make sense ,there no noticeable diff,an yes very few times i hit 1.2 mostly its on 800 or few times on 1000....using a device with 1.5ghz proccesor an oc a device to 1.5 ghz which has 1ghz processor is very diff in nature....
Fair enough.
Well I wouldn't mind an app that mazes out at 1.2GHz with camera app open, as it can lag when shooting HD.
oc upto 1.4 ghz is fair enough, anything more than that is a waste. though you cant find any visible difference between 1,1.2 and 1.4 it does helps in maintaining smoothness on some situations.
yes very true i had oc my sgs1 at 1.2ghz and sgs2 at 1.4ghz but frankly i dint see the diff so after few days use i turnd to orignal settings....but many use oc an phone works fine,but depends on personel use......an yes as bala_gammer says its fine on 1.4ghz......cheeeerz
is overclocking galaxy s2 to 1.3gh safe
HEY pople and friends i want to overclock my samsung galaxy s2 to 1.3gh soo is it safe ??????.
imad.d said:
HEY pople and friends i want to overclock my samsung galaxy s2 to 1.3gh soo is it safe ??????.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey mate
u really think 100mhz would make that much change? its safe btw... seen people running s2 at clock speed higher than 1.3ghz
Plz help @..Longtime hd gaming(gta sa,nfs mw , asphalt,modern combat...) using 1.4 ghz is safe?
I also noted that gameloft games are makes more over heat for phone..
Which is the best and safe voltage level for 1.4 ghz 1250mv or 1275mv or 1300mv
Iam using siyah v6.0b5 kernel with wizzedkat 3.1..
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Well u do not see much difference on daily usage due to oc..but it does give a smoother experience while playing high quality games
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
OK I've got mine on normal mode, and this kind of confirms my original thought that the 500mhz 5th core is clocked to low. I find the pad actually speeds up when I have multiple items in my recently run tab! If my understanding of the way it works these programs are still running in the background right? Then it starts kicking in the other 4 and not just running on the 5th at 500mhz! I really think we'd see a speed boost if we can get that 5th core over 500. Yes its supposed to save battery life but I really don't think 500 is fast enough to run on its own. You're thoughts and observations?
markimar said:
OK I've got mine on normal mode, and this kind of confirms my original thought that the 500mhz 5th core is clocked to low. I find the pad actually speeds up when I have multiple items in my recently run tab! If my understanding of the way it works these programs are still running in the background right? Then it starts kicking in the other 4 and not just running on the 5th at 500mhz! I really think we'd see a speed boost if we can get that 5th core over 500. Yes its supposed to save battery life but I really don't think 500 is fast enough to run on its own. You're thoughts and observations?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ill check on this when i get home. this issue im assuming is with honeycomb itself. we would assume that ICS would properly use those cores
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II t989
i don't have it yet (mine gets delivered on wed), but what you observed makes perfect sense. Can they change it to run on say an 800 MHZ constant "down" to 500MHZ when doing the most simple tasks? obviously i to do not believe that 500MHZ will be sufficient at all times to do screen scrolling and such on it's own.
I'm really hoping that the few performance issues people are seeing is resolved in firmware updates and a tegra 3 optimized version of ICS. Maybe asus/nvidia needs to do more tweaking to HC before the ICS build is pushed if it will take a while for ICS to arrive to the prime (past january).
The cores are optimized just fine. They kick in when rendering a web page or a game, but go idle and use the 5th core when done. Games always render.
ryan562 said:
ill check on this when i get home. this issue im assuming is with honeycomb itself. we would assume that ICS would properly use those cores
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II t989
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing's changed over HC in the way ICS uses h/w acceleration. And I'd assume apps using h/w acceleration do so via calls to the OS, not to the chip directly. So it appears what you've got is what you're going to get.
---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------
markimar said:
OK I've got mine on normal mode, and this kind of confirms my original thought that the 500mhz 5th core is clocked to low. I find the pad actually speeds up when I have multiple items in my recently run tab! If my understanding of the way it works these programs are still running in the background right? Then it starts kicking in the other 4 and not just running on the 5th at 500mhz! I really think we'd see a speed boost if we can get that 5th core over 500. Yes its supposed to save battery life but I really don't think 500 is fast enough to run on its own. You're thoughts and observations?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have Pulse installed? A bunch of people using it were reporting stuttering where their lower powered devices aren't. If you run it at full speed, does it stutter? One of the hypothesis is that it's the core's stepping up and down that's causing the stuttering.
BarryH_GEG said:
Nothing's changed over HC in the way ICS uses h/w acceleration. And I'd assume apps using h/w acceleration do so via calls to the OS, not to the chip directly. So it appears what you've got is what you're going to get.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the OS knows about the fifth core? I believe the chip's own scheduler manages the transition between the quad-core and the companion core, not the Android scheduler.
Mithent said:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the OS knows about the fifth core? I believe the chip's own scheduler manages the transition between the quad-core and the companion core, not the Android scheduler.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the way I'd guess it would work. I don't think Android addresses different chips differently. I'd assume it's up to the SoC to manage the incoming instructions and react accordingly. If Android was modified for dual-core, I don't think it diffentiates between the different implementations of dual-core chips. Someone with more h/w experience correct me if I'm wrong. Also, does anyone know if the chip manufacturer can add additional API's that developers can write to directly either instead of or in parallel with the OS? I ask because how can a game be optimized for Tegra if to the OS all chips are treated the same?
I tried out the power savings mode for a while.it seemed to perform just fine. Immediate difference is that it lowers the contrast ratio on display. This happens as soon as you press the power savings tab. Screen will look like brightness dropped a bit but if you look closely, you'll see it lowered the contrast ratio. Screen still looks good but not as sharp as in other 2 modes. UI still seems to preform just fine. Plus I think the modes doesn't affect gaming or video playback performance. I read that somewhere, either anandtech or Engadget. When watching vids or playing games, it goes into normal mode. So those things won't be affected no matter what power mode you in, I think..lol
I was thinking of starting a performance mode thread. To see different peoples results and thoughts on different power modes. I read some people post that they just use it in power/battery savings mode. Some keep it in normal all the time. Others in balanced mode. Would be good to see how these different modes perform in real life usage. From user perspective. I've noticed, so far, that In balanced mode, battery drains about 10% an hour. This is with nonstop use including gaming, watching vids, web surfing, etc. now in battery savings mode, it drains even less per hour. I haven't ran normal mode long enough to see how it drains compared to others. One thing though, web surfing drains battery just as fast as gaming.
BarryH_GEG said:
I ask because how can a game be optimized for Tegra if to the OS all chips are treated the same?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hate quoting myself but I found the answer on Nvidia's website. Any otimizations are handled through OpenGL. So games written to handle additional calls that Teg2 can support are making those calls through OpenGL with the OS (I'm guessing) used as a pass-through. It would also explain why Tegra optimized games fail on non-Teg devices because they wouldn't be able process the additional requests. So it would appear that Teg optimization isn't being done through the OS. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
BarryH_GEG said:
That's the way I'd guess it would work. I don't think Android addresses different chips differently. I'd assume it's up to the SoC to manage the incoming instructions and react accordingly. If Android was modified for dual-core, I don't think it diffentiates between the different implementations of dual-core chips.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did some research on it; here's what Nvidia say:
The Android 3.x (Honeycomb) operating system has built-in support for multi-processing and is
capable of leveraging the performance of multiple CPU cores. However, the operating system
assumes that all available CPU cores are of equal performance capability and schedules tasks
to available cores based on this assumption. Therefore, in order to make the management of
the Companion core and main cores totally transparent to the operating system, Kal-El
implements both hardware-based and low level software-based management of the Companion
core and the main quad CPU cores.
Patented hardware and software CPU management logic continuously monitors CPU workload
to automatically and dynamically enable and disable the Companion core and the main CPU
cores. The decision to turn on and off the Companion and main cores is purely based on current
CPU workload levels and the resulting CPU operating frequency recommendations made by the
CPU frequency control subsystem embedded in the operating system kernel. The technology
does not require any application or OS modifications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/t...e-for-Low-Power-and-High-Performance-v1.1.pdf
So it uses the existing architecture for CPU power states, but intercepts that at a low level and uses it to control the companion core/quad-core switch?
Edit: I wonder if that means that tinkering with the scheduler/frequency control would allow the point at which the companion core/quad-core switch happens to be altered? If the OP is correct, this might allow the companion core to be utilised less if an increase in "smoothness" was desired, at the cost of some battery life?
Mithent said:
I wonder if that means that tinkering with the scheduler/frequency control would allow the point at which the companion core/quad-core switch happens to be altered? If the OP is correct, this might allow the companion core to be utilised less if an increase in "smoothness" was desired, at the cost of some battery life?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what we guessed was right. The OS treats all multi-cores the same and it's up to the chip maker to optimize requests and return them. To your point, what happens between the three processors (1+1x2+1x2) is black-box and controlled by Nvidia. To any SetCPU type program it's just going to show up as a single chip. People have tried in vain to figure how to make the Qualcomm dual-core's act independently so I'd guess Teg3 will end up the same way. And Nvidia won't even publish their drivers so I highly doubt they'll provide any outside hooks to control something as sensitive as the performance of each individual core in what they're marketing as a single chip.
[/COLOR]
Do you have Pulse installed? A bunch of people using it were reporting stuttering where their lower powered devices aren't. If you run it at full speed, does it stutter? One of the hypothesis is that it's the core's stepping up and down that's causing the stuttering.[/QUOTE]
I have been running mine in balanced mode, have had pulse installed since day one, no lag or stuttering in anything. games, other apps work fine.
Well my phones when clocked at 500 so I wouldn't be surprised
Sent from my VS910 4G using xda premium
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:
I know that this isn't a Q&A Forum, but we don't have any, we only have a post that no ones answer, i know too that this question is anwered so many times before but the answer i got was like "is normal", "an article from Xperia phones that explain some of that", but i still don't get it. System always get an amount of RAM needed for the correct working of all stuff. But why in other phones (even with the same chipset) that doesn't happen? And why we can't see where and how the left memory is been used by system? Normally i've seen before how RAM is reduced to share it with GPU, but in ICS our GPU looks worst than on GB so RAM definetely isn't on the GPU, so is good that all of us reach the point of this, i get some screens from other devices and i will posting this in a little bit time. SORRY FOR MY BAD ENGLISH!
PICS are:
1-i9100G
2-i9100G
3-Motorola Droid Razr (SAME CHIPSET) TI OMAP 4430
4-i9300 Galaxy SIII Exynos Quad
5-i9100 Galaxy SII Exynos Dual
6-i9250 Galaxy Nexus TI OMAP 4460
this was asked before but the answer was found here link:http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1682204
darkshadow1997 said:
this was asked before but the answer was found here link:http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1682204
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And what is the answer? The article about xperias that i've stated in the OP? If that was the case why in other phones like of the screenshots i put it doesn't happen? I already readed all of related post and no one give me an accurate answer!
why do you need more ram?
uninstall unnecessary apps and use supercharger.
Sent from my E15i using xda app-developers app
Lukenda said:
why do you need more ram?
uninstall unnecessary apps and use supercharger.
Sent from my E15i using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't need more RAM, what i need is to know WHERE DID my RAM go. Maybe nobody know the answer, if i knew a little bit of development i would search the answer but i can't!
As Codeworkx said:
codeworkx said:
It's only 687 MB shown because some amount of ram gets reserved from the kernel for video and graphics stuff.
But ram is there to be used. Free ram is wasted ram and therefore wasted money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyways, it doesn't impact performance, and yes, this is mainly tied with the GPU of our phones, it seems.
Jiangyi said:
As Codeworkx said:
Anyways, it doesn't impact performance, and yes, this is mainly tied with the GPU of our phones, it seems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Strangely the gpu performs better on GB than JB. How is that possible?
Enviado desde mi GT-I9100G usando Tapatalk 2
Jiangyi said:
As Codeworkx said:
Anyways, it doesn't impact performance, and yes, this is mainly tied with the GPU of our phones, it seems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its ok.....i have also read similar thing in xperia topic. But i just want to ask , why does this not happened in the non G version. If it was reserved by kernel for graphics and gpu use then why the graphics performance have become worse in ics....???? All is clear that samsung is not treating the both sets similar only selling them at similar price.....poor samsung .
cooladityarai said:
its ok.....i have also read similar thing in xperia topic. But i just want to ask , why does this not happened in the non g version. If it was reserved by kernel for graphics and gpu use then why the graphics performance have become worse in ics....???? All is clear that samsung is not treating the both sets similar only selling them at similar price.....poor samsung .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1000000000000
is Gnex in yhe picture has the same ram like us ?
because in pics its has only about 680 like our phone .
Expect a signature ?
codybank_789 said:
is Gnex in yhe picture has the same ram like us ?
because in pics its has only about 680 like our phone .
Expect a signature ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah only the galaxy nexus seems to have the same RAM..
codybank_789 said:
is Gnex in yhe picture has the same ram like us ?
because in pics its has only about 680 like our phone .
Expect a signature ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh yes it has same as our..... but it has a better display of 720p res. So what does it mean...??? The cpu has to work more on the extra pixels . And the thing that ram is reserved for graphics sounds correct here because more pixels more load on gpu and ram. But did u noticed the same processor and ram having moto razar hav nearly 800mb available ram. I just can not understand why the G version has been locked with ram and not the nonG version , still while launching the G version Samsung said that both devices are similar in performance. But we all know about it , nothing to say here.
And the most important thing is that Motorola Atrix2 is available @22.5k which have everything same except display, and also gnexus in some places @24 k yet it have more powerful cpu and higher resolution. . ...and what we r paying for i9100g........27.5k . Samsung is only cheating Indian users, even they have not specified on the boxes whether it is G version ( saw many issues like that on google ).
cooladityarai said:
Oh yes it has same as our..... but it has a better display of 720p res. So what does it mean...??? The cpu has to work more on the extra pixels . And the thing that ram is reserved for graphics sounds correct here because more pixels more load on gpu and ram. But did u noticed the same processor and ram having moto razar hav nearly 800mb available ram. I just can not understand why the G version has been locked with ram and not the nonG version , still while launching the G version Samsung said that both devices are similar in performance. But we all know about it , nothing to say here.
And the most important thing is that Motorola Atrix2 is available @22.5k which have everything same except display, and also gnexus in some places @24 k yet it have more powerful cpu and higher resolution. . ...and what we r paying for i9100g........27.5k . Samsung is only cheating Indian users, even they have not specified on the boxes whether it is G version ( saw many issues like that on google ).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just go ahead & sue Samsung for cheating... as consumers we have right to know the real model we are paying for... but i dont think can win the case so just be it!
zaclee said:
Just go ahead & sue Samsung for cheating... as consumers we have right to know the real model we are paying for... but i dont think can win the case so just be it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man u r wrong we can win against samsung . They are cheating us Under Consumer Act 1987 . So we can.....either they refund our money or replace with the original one. And also Samsung has to pay for the mental hrassment that we suffered.
What if I told you the 680mb ram is just a display error across the device.
Have you ever exceeded using 680mb ram on the phone?
rskyline said:
I know that this isn't a Q&A Forum, but we don't have any, we only have a post that no ones answer, i know too that this question is anwered so many times before but the answer i got was like "is normal", "an article from Xperia phones that explain some of that", but i still don't get it. System always get an amount of RAM needed for the correct working of all stuff. But why in other phones (even with the same chipset) that doesn't happen? And why we can't see where and how the left memory is been used by system? Normally i've seen before how RAM is reduced to share it with GPU, but in ICS our GPU looks worst than on GB so RAM definetely isn't on the GPU, so is good that all of us reach the point of this, i get some screens from other devices and i will posting this in a little bit time. SORRY FOR MY BAD ENGLISH!
PICS are:
1-i9100G
2-i9100G
3-Motorola Droid Razr (SAME CHIPSET) TI OMAP 4430
4-i9300 Galaxy SIII Exynos Quad
5-i9100 Galaxy SII Exynos Dual
6-i9250 Galaxy Nexus TI OMAP 4460
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I regret buying this phone, if you ask me, not because is Samsung, just because it's Android. I really don't understand the logic behind a mobile OS that uses lots of RAM in a device that obviously does not have great battery. I had at the time an iPhone 4S and my SGSII simultaneously, so I got the chance to test them in RL. Even iPhone having a less efficient display (LCD vs AMOLED) and a smaller battery than the one on the SGSII, in actual daily use, iPhone seems to handle its RAM way better than any Android I have tested. The problem in many Android IMO is when in idle, still consuming a lot of RAM that greatly affects battery.
jorgelh8 said:
I regret buying this phone, if you ask me, not because is Samsung, just because it's Android. I really don't understand the logic behind a mobile OS that uses lots of RAM in a device that obviously does not have great battery. I had at the time an iPhone 4S and my SGSII simultaneously, so I got the chance to test them in RL. Even iPhone having a less efficient display (LCD vs AMOLED) and a smaller battery than the one on the SGSII, in actual daily use, iPhone seems to handle its RAM way better than any Android I have tested. The problem in many Android IMO is when in idle, still consuming a lot of RAM that greatly affects battery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so u think more free ram is better ? its maybe right in ios but its not in android. ram is born to be used.
Dont think ram consuming cause battery drain.
Expect a signature ?
Straight answer below.
Scenario: An Xperia™ Phone.
"Now, let’s look at how the RAM is used. Out of our 512MB RAM, about a third is used for functions that require a dedicated memory slot to operate fast enough. For example, this is the case for certain multimedia functions. The remaining space, which is at least 340MB, is reserved for the Linux user space, as required in the Android Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). Within the Linux user space, functions like the activity manager and Home screen app are running." (Sonymobile, 2012).
Picture illustration as follows:
This partitioning more or less applies to all other manufacturers' devices, thus explains why the promised 1GB in our device is not entirely visible to us.
As to why different phones with the same chipset has different amounts of RAMs (i.e. Samsung SGS2 VS Motorola Droid Razr & that Razr appears to have more usable RAM), it simply goes back to the reason:
Samsung SGS2 consists of more system functions thus uses more more RAM than compared to that of Motorola Droid Razr.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
______________________________________
Source led by:
darkshadow1997 said:
this was asked before but the answer was found here link:http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1682204
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Direct source (read more): Learn about the technical differences between Gingerbread and ICS [Updated] — Developer World
KeithOYS said:
Straight answer below.
Scenario: An Xperia™ Phone.
"Now, let’s look at how the RAM is used. Out of our 512MB RAM, about a third is used for functions that require a dedicated memory slot to operate fast enough. For example, this is the case for certain multimedia functions. The remaining space, which is at least 340MB, is reserved for the Linux user space, as required in the Android Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). Within the Linux user space, functions like the activity manager and Home screen app are running." (Sonymobile, 2012).
Picture illustration as follows:
This partitioning more or less applies to all other manufacturers' devices, thus explains the OP's question why the promised 1GB in our GT-I9100 is not entirely visible to us.
______________________________________
Source led by:
Direct source (read more): Learn about the technical differences between Gingerbread and ICS [Updated] — Developer World
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that answer why razr doesn't have less ram and our phone does? Same chipset same os same version.
Enviado desde mi GT-I9100G usando Tapatalk 2
rskyline said:
But that answer why razr doesn't have less ram and our phone does? Same chipset same os same version.
Enviado desde mi GT-I9100G usando Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it depend on the manufacturer.
s2g samsung
razr motorola
Expect a signature ?