[ChinuKabi]

Windows phone uses the NT kernel. Same as the Windows 8.1. It can support 64 cores. How about a phone with 64 cores.

[Zulfigar]

Windows phone uses the NT kernel. Same as the Windows 8.1. It can support 64 cores. How about a phone with 64 cores.

Did you hear about the HTC Two or Nokia Lumia 1820? o.o

In all seriousness, I'd like to see it, but that would heat up faster than a microwave making tea. D:

Still be cool though.

[ChinuKabi]

I know that it's a gimmick. But even Android sells on gimmick.

A 64 cores smartphone running in dc current to complement the cores.

[jpal12]

There are many reasons that there are no 64 core phones. I have listed some of them.

1. Qualcomm has no 64 core SoC (Qualcomm makes all the windows phone SoCs)
2. There is no 64 core SoC
3. Even the next generation ARM interconnect only supports 32 cores in big.LITTLE (Current generations support 8)
4. The die area would be too large (Double the die size of an intel chip)
5. It would produce too much heat
6. It would use too much power
7. Most apps would only use a few cores

[kg4icg]

I can tell you, Intel experimented with a 80 core chip, to be exact, it was the size of a NVIDIA 780GTX. Now how big do you want your phone to be to house such a big chip, get back into reality.

[ChinuKabi]

You all are making me feel like a criminal. What was my crime, to suggest a 64 cores?. If we all start thinking like this then how will innovation take place.

64 cores PC then?

Many would not be knowing of this capability of WP

[jojoe42]

There are many reasons that there are no 64 core phones. I have listed some of them.

1. Qualcomm has no 64 core SoC (Qualcomm makes all the windows phone SoCs)
2. There is no 64 core SoC
3. Even the next generation ARM interconnect only supports 32 cores in big.LITTLE (Current generations support 8)
4. The die area would be too large (Double the die size of an intel chip)
5. It would produce too much heat
6. It would use too much power
7. Most apps would only use a few cores

Well heck people said that we didn't need more than one core on our processors ten years ago, and people said that we didn't need more than 80GB of storage in our laptops. The idea of a 64 core phone is possible, but by the time we find the technology to feasibly squeeze the processing power down into a small form factor, either some new form factor or processor architecture/computing system (*cough* quantum computing *cough*) would've come along. Don't shred the OP up too much lads ;)

[ChinuKabi]

Well we could have an AIO with a CPU tower consisting of 64 cores and a cooler. Haha

[kg4icg]

Not shredding anyone, just think some people get carried away on there imagination. Only company right now leading in the scale factor is Intel which is currently on 14nm, in which the next shrink for them is 10nm. And right now a dual core Intel soc, wipes the floor with a Qualcomm quad core and a Samsung octa core. Goes along the lines of RISC vs CISC.

[ChinuKabi]

Windows phone supports 256 point finger touch support, Android too. But why. We can include in our beast.

[Zulfigar]

Well heck people said that we didn't need more than one core on our processors ten years ago, and people said that we didn't need more than 80GB of storage in our laptops. The idea of a 64 core phone is possible, but by the time we find the technology to feasibly squeeze the processing power down into a small form factor, either some new form factor or processor architecture/computing system (*cough* quantum computing *cough*) would've come along. Don't shred the OP up too much lads ;)

Oh, don't get anybody wrong, we're not saying we don't need it, but the problem is that the technology for it to be usable isn't there yet. We'll have to wait for many years to come before we can actually use the tech to its full potential.

Right now though, it's just not there, but at least Microsoft is future proofing it's OS before the hardware is ready.

Oh, and to the OP, start thinking more outside the box, more cores? That's just one aspect. ;)

[radmanvr]

Who cares about multi-cores most apps only use a few cores.

[berty6294]

Quad core is more then enough, heck dual core did the job. There are so many things that need to change before we start adding more cores to mobile phones!

[salmanahmad]

Windows phone uses the NT kernel. Same as the Windows 8.1. It can support 64 cores. How about a phone with 64 cores.

Just because a kernel supports hardware from the future doesn't mean that there is an immediate need for doing so.

Plus Windows Phone, as in Microsoft, relies heavily on Snapdragon and Snapdragon hasn't revealed any plans for a 64 core SOC.

Then again there is a chip out there called Nvidia Tegra K1, there are two variants of it one is a 32 bit 4 core chip and the other one of the dual core 64 bit chip. Why am I mentioning it?

Because the Tegra K1 comes with a 192 core GPU, capable of rendering at upto 4K and with more power than a PlayStation 3.

Only downside? They don't give a flying **** about Windows Phone and are only optimizing the chip for Android. Sorry.

I know that it's a gimmick. But even Android sells on gimmick.

A 64 cores smartphone running in dc current to complement the cores.

Android doesn't sell on gimmicks. There are hundreds of other more logical reasons for why Android phones sell more, but in short they sell more because they can simply "do" more.

[a5cent]

Because the Tegra K1 comes with a 192 core GPU, capable of rendering at upto 4K and with more power than a PlayStation 3.

A GPU with hundreds of cores is nothing special. Many have over a thousand cores. A GPU with a hundred cores can be just as powerful however. It depends only on the GPU's architecture. CPUs are no different, it's just not something commonly understood.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, we can't really measure performance in terms of cores. If we could, there would be no reason to stop at 64. Why not 2048? Or 4096? Or a million?

There's a reason why desktop CPUs haven't really gone beyond four cores, while even the lowliest dual core desktop CPUs blow away the octacore CPUs in our smartphones, which is why this thread makes little sense.

[salmanahmad]

A GPU with hundreds of cores is nothing special. Many have over a thousand cores. A GPU with a hundred cores can be just as powerful however. It depends only on the GPU's architecture. CPUs are no different, it's just not something commonly understood.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, we can't really measure performance in terms of cores. If we could, there would be no reason to stop at 64. Why not 2048? Or 4096? Or a million?

There's a reason why desktop CPUs haven't really gone beyond four cores, while even the lowliest dual core desktop CPUs blow away the octacore CPUs in our smartphones, which is why this thread makes little sense.

Do you think that I didn't know that there was more the CPU performance than core count? I merely recommended a SOC capable of over 64 cores.

Apart from cores I know what else is important. I also know that more cores doesn't always equal better performance, if this was the case how come a dual core iPhone beats most quad core Android/Windows Phone devices?

And then comes thermal throttling that is a result of the architecture and size constraints of a device.

But I didn't want to go that in-depth.

If OP wants a 64+ core SOC, he should message a Nvidia representative or ask Qualcomm to make one. Not that either one will make a difference.

[ChinuKabi]

If 64 core config is never going to be a reality, then why does NT support it?

[pankaj981]

If 64 core config is never going to be a reality, then why does NT support it?

64 core configuration is very much possible, supported and used by servers. You should understand that NT is a shared kernel between the latest Windows operating systems, including Windows Phone. Secondly I'm not sure if it's 64 cores or sockets

[a5cent]

Do you think that I didn't know that there was more the CPU performance than core count? I merely recommended a SOC capable of over 64 cores.

No, I didn't think so, but you did say:

because the Tegra K1 comes with a 192 core GPU, capable of rendering at upto 4K and with more power than a PlayStation 3",

which can be taken to imply that there is a connection between core count and performance, which isn't very clear for those who don't know better. That is why I jumped in.

If 64 core config is never going to be a reality, then why does NT support it?

Because it makes sense for some servers. It doesn't make sense for desktops or any other type of single-user device. For such devices, faster cores are better than more of them.

[salmanahmad]

No, I didn't think so, but you did say:



which can be taken to mean that there is a connection between core count and performance, which isn't very clear for those who don't know better. That is why I jumped in.



Because it makes sense for some servers. It doesn't make sense for desktops or any other type of single-user device. For such devices, faster cores is better than more of them.

I apologise for the confusion.

And yes, fewer more powerful cores favor most tasks including gaming, while slower but more cores favor video rendering and a few other tasks.

Again, I didn't mean to imply that more cores always meant better performance.

[a5cent]

And yes, fewer more powerful cores favor most tasks including gaming, while slower but more cores favor video rendering and a few other tasks.

Exactly, particularly for 3D rendering that is true, as you can split up a frame into a grid and render each square in the grid separately. That ability to take a task and break it down into a number of smaller tasks, is what enables parallelization, which is where multiple cores come into play. That also explains why GPUs tend to have a lot more cores than general purpose CPUs.

For normal video playback, that is not true however, so having multiple cores for simple video playback is pretty useless.

At least on smartphones, there aren't a lot of tasks that can be split up in that way, which as you say, is why this thread doesn't make much sense.