- 05-14-2012, 08:42 AM #1
While I've always said that dual cores or more of a battery strain, I still assumed companies would do it on windows phones. Especially the dwindling Nokia company. HTC and Samsung are reportedly doing it. Do you think this will be a bad move on Nokia? Do you think they will change their minds? Why hasn't someone figured out the secret to long battery life on multi cores? Won't this hinder some ability for better video capturing? Maybe they will be going for a faster single core. Who knows?!?!
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
Last edited by cp2_4eva; 05-14-2012 at 09:38 AM.
05-14-2012, 08:54 AM #3
- 346 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
It's from an interview that happened a while back (a month ago I think..) I really think people are reading too much into it though. I think Elop was just defending the current position of Windows Phone.
There is no way in **** Nokia won't offer a dual core phone out of the gate with Apollo. In today's world of phone specs and epeen waiving not offering dual cores will hurt sales a lot.
- 05-14-2012, 09:10 AM #4
I've read that multi core processors actually get better battery life. Samsung claims that the new quad-core galaxy s3 gets 20% better battery life than the dual core s2. The claim is that if you have 4 smaller cores but don't need the processing power of more than one of them the other 3 are idle thereby saving the battery. Car companies have built v8 engines with the capability of running on 6 or 4 to get better gas mileage. Same concept.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
- 05-14-2012, 09:27 AM #6
So what's wrong with current single core Windows Phone, where the (non-existant) other 3 are always idle saving the battery!
Before anyone jumps on and says yeah but games and yeah but videos and yeah but graphics... say if I was doing what I do generally, communicate - text, emails, phone, whatsapp, skype, tango, facebook, twitter, linkedin, viber, current games - then I don't really need the second core to make it any faster do I? i.e. battery isn't going to be any better than what it is right now for the mass that don't play those core intensive games or use those graphic hungry video recordings.
However, a scenario when the whole mass market wants to and will use those games everyday and record everything in their life - they will make all the other 3 cores come into action or at least 1 or 2 of them, right? Will they have a better battery than the single cores or worse?
If the theory is that the battery is "better" because we have 3 cores sitting idle - how is it different than single core running all the time on current phones or quad-core Windows Phone?
If the theory is that the battery is "better" because s2 with dual core had both cores working all the time whereas s3 with 4 cores, will have only 1 core working all the time, then it makes sense. But even if with dual cores, the second core is just there if the phone demands for it, then the effect of saving battery won't be noted my the user ever!
In summary, if your tasks are small enough for a single core, it doesnt matter how many cores your phone has, you will never see your battery being better. May be worse, but not better.
But if you tasks are larger than what a single core can handle, for obvious reason, firing up more than 1 core, will drain more battery every time you do that.
However, this is my understanding and will love to discuss this and understand it from someone well-versed with how these cores and battery life work!
05-14-2012, 10:01 AM #8
- 254 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
- 05-14-2012, 10:06 AM #9
- 05-14-2012, 10:20 AM #11
As others have stated, I think Elop is defending the current crop of devices and not the upcoming Apollo devices that are still quite a ways away. I don't think Nokia is brave enough (or stupid enough) to release a non-dual core or quad core this fall.
05-14-2012, 10:22 AM #12
- 254 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
Unlike what happened with the current Lumia series, Nokia has a little more time to develop their Windows Phone 8 devices. I'm sure there are already dual-core Nokia prototypes running Apollo.
- 05-14-2012, 10:35 AM #13
- 05-14-2012, 10:44 AM #14
putting this in my RUMOR hat...
he doesn't even have a quote from Elope , he just CLAIMS that he said that .... maybe he did . 1 year ago for all we know...:lol:
phones are coming out with QUAD-core .. and your telling me that dual-core is not worth it? I guess does quad-cored Android phones are really gona SUCK if i follow that statement...
- 05-14-2012, 11:34 AM #17
2) Microsoft has no ulterior motive other than battery life to "skimp" on hardware. Microsoft isn't the one paying for the chips! It's total savings is 0.
More likely, the reason WP is restricted to single core is simply because Microsoft is slow to respond to changing market conditions.
I'm not sure if Quad Core ARM Cortex A9 SoCs is something actually planned by ARM, btw. It just seems like something random a bunch of companies cooked up to get rid of the hoard of their leftover last gen processors. So don't be so proud holding up your Exynos and Tegra 3.
- 05-14-2012, 12:11 PM #18
With a single-core phone, the obvious way to reduce the power draw from the CPU is to turn it off when you don't need it, and turn it on when you do. Another way is to reduce the clock rate that the CPU is running at, since higher clock rates increase the power consumption. The Intel Medfield CPU for example can change its clock rate in 100mhz increments from 100mhz up to 1.6 ghz (though I think the current reference phone doesn't bother going below 600mhz). And of course the CPU can be put to sleep completely until something wakes it up.
With a multi-core phone there are a lot more opportunities (and a lot more need need) to control the power consumption. As with a single-core design, the OS can control the clock rate. And as you mentioned, it can put all or some of the cores to sleep. But let's say the CPU wakes up and a couple of tasks need to do some work. The OS can wake up one core at 600mhz to run the two threads, or it can wake up two cores at 300mhz to run the two threads (one per core). The single-core design does not have this option, it must crank up its one and only core fast enough to handle both threads.
It turns out that all else being equal, it usually takes less power to run 2 cores at 300mhz than it does to 1 core at 600mhz, because the power drain goes up faster than the clock rate. And mobile phones and tablets are increasingly being pushed harder and harder so there are more opportunities to spread tasks around on all the CPUs while keeping them clocked way down. And if you really need the horsepower (games) then the OS can crank all the cores up to 800mhz or whatever and make things really hum along.
Also, some of the newer multi-core designs are asymmetrical, with several main cores that can be sped up to 1.6ghz or so, plus a special core that is designed as a low-and-slow processor (low power, slow speed). This can only be used for basic background tasks like email polling and such, basically the dumbphone-level stuff, leaving the main cores for the more smartphone-y apps.
- 05-14-2012, 12:39 PM #19
Couple of things; this is the bio of the author of this article at BGR which everythingWM is quoting: "Dan joins the BGR team as the Android Editor, covering all things relating to Google’s premiere operating system. When he isn’t testing the latest devices or apps, he can be found enjoying the New York City nightlife."
Secondly at the source of BGR's story Nokia CEO Claims Multicore CPU a "Waste Of Battery" | ITProPortal.com its reported that Elop says "The so-called dual-core, quad-core mobile phones can only waste batteries, but not be useful for consumers all the time". Nowhere does he mention that Nokia WONT be using multi cores in their devices and more importantly this is not the original article which is from the Yangcheng Evening News here 诺基亚CEO双核、四核手机只是浪费电_羊城晚报多媒体数字报刊平台.
So what this says to me is the original statement by Elop has been taken out of context and most likely misinterpreted and then pounced on by an android fanboy editor to spread FUD (like a poster a few posts above) about Nokia and Windows Phone. Until Mr Elop comes out and is directly quoted as saying Nokia wont use multi cores in their phones there is nothing to get excited about.
And if you're so worried about not having a nuclear reactor in your phone, run quickly to the nearest carrier store and pick up an andorid device.
- 05-14-2012, 01:59 PM #20
- 05-14-2012, 02:21 PM #22
- 05-14-2012, 02:50 PM #23
Some relevant points I think worth considering here are:
1.) Multi-core processors don't do anything for performance unless the software that runs on them is optimized to use multiple cores. Even on desktop computers, most apps still aren't optimized to benefit from multiple cores. The OS's are, so the computers generally handle multiple threads better and perform faster. But until a version of Windows Phone OS is released that is designed to use multi-core processors (WP8 I'm sure will be) there won't be any advantage. Unless the tame sort of tombstoning multi-tasking that WP does now changes to something more robust, I think dual cores aren't going to do much. Remember it will also take a while for native WP8 apps to come out, and only SOME of those are going to be designed to actually use multiple cores and benefit from them. Multiple cores aren't like adding clock cycles, they don't automatically make everything run faster all on their own.
2.) More cores don't necessarily use more energy. Samsung's new quad-core Exynos chip actually uses significantly LESS energy than the dual-core chip it supersedes.
3.) There's no sense is getting too excited about dual-core WP8 phones now. Even if they start shipping them at the end of the year, they aren't going to be amazingly different from the single core processors until brand new apps are written to use them. Even then, you are only going to see a difference in apps that demand a lot of performance. Like games for example. Most of the apps you use every day won't run any faster with 2 cores. There's a lot of marketing hype behind this. The most exciting part about dual-cores is not an overnight performance jump, it's what it will mean for future development of the OS and apps much further down the road, say a year, two years down the road. It will enable more robust features, like better integration of voice recognition features throughout the OS and much better, more complex games with better graphics. But it's going to take a while until we see those things.
- 05-14-2012, 02:54 PM #24
Adding more cores to a phone without an OS and apps to use them is more like adding speeds to the transmission maybe. If you go from a 4 speed to a 6 speed it's great if you go on the highway at top speed, but if you only drive 35 mph around town, it makes no difference.
Same is true with multi-core processors. Until you have an OS that can use them AND apps that are written to use them and are demanding enough to need the performance, they don't do all that much.