07-19-2015 01:34 PM
56 123
tools
  1. Wolfseye's Avatar
    If the 940 XL is really as posted on the internet about, I will definately add that to my WP collection (or rather start one then ^^) ... :)
    07-15-2015 11:00 AM
  2. worldspy99's Avatar
    I probably will, but I already have about 7 Windows phones.
    Make some other members happy in the Marketplace by listing a few for a great price:-) I used to have that many but now I am just down to about three devices and two tablets:-)
    Wolfseye likes this.
    07-15-2015 11:42 AM
  3. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Screw waiting. Waiting for McLaren and W10 and such made me miss out on the 1520. I'm sick of being on this 920, given it's been almost 3 years. I'm going with whichever 940 model is the highest-end on AT&T at launch. If they have something from Intel, I'll consider paying my phone off to upgrade early, or I'll wait on it. Given Microsoft's history with this crap, it'll either be canceled, or it'll be delayed until late-2016, when AT&T Next users can upgrade anyway.
    07-15-2015 12:08 PM
  4. rhapdog's Avatar
    I would expect an Intel solution to be late 2016 at least.
    07-15-2015 12:39 PM
  5. HoosierDaddy's Avatar
    I'm for more chip makers; competition lowers prices.
    Guytronic likes this.
    07-15-2015 01:29 PM
  6. Maaz Mansori's Avatar
    I would expect an Intel solution to be late 2016 at least.
    Daniel posted something about early 2016 in an article. I wouldn't be surprised if it is delayed though. I'm assuming the 940 will hit in November or so; hopefully we should have a better idea of when an Intel solution may come out by that time.
    07-15-2015 05:05 PM
  7. a5cent's Avatar
    The desktop software I run requires powerful hardware, so I see no point in an x86 based phone for my personal use.
    However, I'd love to hear how others are planing to use such a device, and which x86 software they're most looking forward to running on it. Examples anyone?
    Laura Knotek and Guytronic like this.
    07-15-2015 05:40 PM
  8. gernerttl's Avatar
    Although having a phone that runs an x86 processor is neat, I'm not sure if it has more advantages over an ARM powered phone. Especially with Continuum coming down the pipe. So, I think if the 940 is released and Verizon gets it, I would probably go with the 940 maybe the 940XL...al though I'm not a huge phablet fan.
    07-15-2015 07:45 PM
  9. rhapdog's Avatar
    The desktop software I run requires powerful hardware, so I see no point in an x86 based phone for my personal use.
    However, I'd love to hear how others are planing to use such a device, and which x86 software they're most looking forward to running on it. Examples anyone?
    Well, with x86 support, I might be able to install and run something like Bookworm Deluxe, Open Sonic, etc. for games. Nothing demanding. Also, I would most likely use UEStudio or UltraEdit with an attached keyboard. PuTTY would also be nice to have.

    I would also imagine there are people that would love to run the desktop version of Chrome or Firefox when they are attached to monitor, keyboard, and mouse.

    My wife has Foxit Phantom PDF, which I imagine she would use on something like that as well.

    My Dad has stated he'd like to run Thunderbird and also some publishing software he bought in 2003.

    I'm sure a lot of people have ideas about what they might like to run, especially when hooked up to a monitor, mouse, and keyboard.
    a5cent likes this.
    07-15-2015 08:37 PM
  10. Jazmac's Avatar
    Yes!
    Perfect. lololol
    07-16-2015 12:15 AM
  11. tangledW's Avatar
    Wtf, why so
    First, it's slow - and I mean slower than it should be. Slower than my old 822 and even my 635.

    The screen is terrible. Blacks are more like a dark grey and viewing angles are bad.

    It overheats way too easily.

    Capacitive buttons aren't vey responsive. On my first three phones they barely worked at all. That's right, I'm on my 4th phone.

    Bluetooth connectivity is very poor.

    I could go on and on...
    07-16-2015 12:17 AM
  12. slyronit's Avatar
    I don't think current Windows phone apps would run on x86 hardware. Universal apps will, though.
    07-16-2015 12:19 AM
  13. gernerttl's Avatar
    The desktop software I run requires powerful hardware, so I see no point in an x86 based phone for my personal use.
    However, I'd love to hear how others are planing to use such a device, and which x86 software they're most looking forward to running on it. Examples anyone?
    You've kind of touched on another issue. The fact that you have software that requires powerful hardware. That powerful hardware would require a lot of power. Additionally, x86 apps designed for desktop and laptops are not optimized for mobile devices with small batteries like phones and tend not to be energy efficient.
    a5cent likes this.
    07-16-2015 03:01 AM
  14. a5cent's Avatar
    I don't think current Windows phone apps would run on x86 hardware. Universal apps will, though.
    With the exception of some (natively coded) games, they will all run perfectly fine.
    07-16-2015 03:32 AM
  15. a5cent's Avatar
    You've kind of touched on another issue. The fact that you have software that requires powerful hardware. That powerful hardware would require a lot of power. Additionally, x86 apps designed for desktop and laptops are not optimized for mobile devices with small batteries like phones and tend not to be energy efficient.
    Absolutely. On the other hand, I think most people using a phone to run x86 software won't be doing so without the phone being docked, or at least lying on a charging pad. There is simply no way you'll get a decent experience out of that without a keyboard or mouse attached, so providing power likely won't be a huge issue.
    07-16-2015 03:40 AM
  16. Harrie-S's Avatar
    The desktop software I run requires powerful hardware, so I see no point in an x86 based phone for my personal use.
    However, I'd love to hear how others are planing to use such a device, and which x86 software they're most looking forward to running on it. Examples anyone?
    Not sure but will photo and video capturing/processing be faster.
    07-16-2015 04:11 AM
  17. a5cent's Avatar
    Not sure but will photo and video capturing/processing be faster.
    We can't know without it being tested/benchmarked first. I'm not aware of any such tests...

    Whatever the results, just know that there is nothing about the x86 instruction set that would make it inherently faster or slower than ARM, not to mention that the CPU isn't really involved in video capturing/processing anyway. That would be the DSP and GPU. Your question assumes a relationship between the CPU and photo/video processing where there is almost none.
    Last edited by a5cent; 07-16-2015 at 01:43 PM. Reason: slight clarifications
    Harrie-S likes this.
    07-16-2015 05:32 AM
  18. Harrie-S's Avatar
    We can't know without it being tested/benchmarked first. I'm not aware of any such tests...
    Whatever the results, just know that there is nothing about the x86 architecture that would make it inherently faster or slower than ARM, not to mention that the CPU isn't really involved in video capturing/processing anyway. That would be the DSP and GPU. Your question assumes a relationship between the CPU architecture and photo/video processing where there is almost none.
    Thanks for the clear answer.
    So with out an update of the DSP and GPU a x86 has no advantage and with an update of the DSP and GPU you do not really need a x86 because an ARM also can "do" it.
    a5cent likes this.
    07-16-2015 06:08 AM
  19. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ Exactly!
    Harrie-S likes this.
    07-16-2015 06:18 AM
  20. sinime's Avatar
    Wouldn't the only advantage be running desktop applications, either directly on the phone's screen, or limited to a desktop mode / continuum?
    07-16-2015 12:53 PM
  21. nohra's Avatar
    Neither, unless they end up with a better camera than the 1020. And since the expectation is that they won't, I might as well wait.
    07-16-2015 01:04 PM
  22. rhapdog's Avatar
    Wouldn't the only advantage be running desktop applications, either directly on the phone's screen, or limited to a desktop mode / continuum?
    Yes. If you don't need Desktop Applications, then it would be of no use to you and wouldn't really matter. I, for one, would definitely run a few desktop applications. And if USB-OTG will work with a USB-DVD burner, I can think of a few additional Desktop Apps I'd use, such as one to burn my vacation videos to DVD or Blu-Ray.
    07-16-2015 01:42 PM
  23. a5cent's Avatar
    Wouldn't the only advantage be running desktop applications
    I slightly disagree with rhapdog. IMHO the correct answer is "it depends".

    As far as x86 compatibility is concerned, yes, the ability to run desktop applications is all that's about. There is a lot more to a mobile SoC than just the instruction set however.

    If Intel happens to engineer a very capable SoC that bests Qualcomm's offerings in at least some disciplines (at a similar price and power budget), we'll obviously have reasons to want an Intel based smartphone even if we don't care about desktop software. We'll have to wait and see just how capable they are. Their x86 compatibility could potentially be only one of multiple reasons to prefer Intel's over Qualcomm's offerings, particularly if Intel is able to leverage their manufacturing advantage over TSMC.
    07-16-2015 01:47 PM
  24. gernerttl's Avatar
    Thanks for the clear answer.
    So with out an update of the DSP and GPU a x86 has no advantage and with an update of the DSP and GPU you do not really need a x86 because an ARM also can "do" it.
    You also have to consider that the x86 architecture on a desktop/laptop is not integrated into one chip, it's different chips integrated into the system's motherboard. That allows for overall faster processors and more powerful systems. With smartphones and ARM powered tablets, you have a SoC where you have everything on one chip; the CPU, GPU, DSP, and the BT, GSM, LTE, WiFi, and CDMA radios. Because of the size of the chip, you have to sacrifice performance of certain aspects to get that integration and miniturization. A 1.5GHz quad core x86 CPU requires more power and cooling that its quad-core ARM counterpart running at the same clock speed. So, Intel would have to figure out how to create an x86 SoC that is not only powerful enough to run many x86 apps, yet also runs cool enough and is energy efficient. I foresee that happening more and more with tablets, but I'm not sure they've gotten to the point where it will be workable for a phone sized (even phablet sized) device. Both Qualcomm and Broadcom are the market leaders in SoC production, and the competition is only going to get tougher as more and more handheld computers (that's what a smartphone is) are produced. So Intel has a challenge ahead of them. The upshot is, is that as more and more smartphones and tablets are made, the need for the backend servers to power data centers is also going to increase. The market for servers is tough, but Intel has been in that market for decades and knows how to compete in that space.

    We can't know without it being tested/benchmarked first. I'm not aware of any such tests...

    Whatever the results, just know that there is nothing about the x86 instruction set that would make it inherently faster or slower than ARM, not to mention that the CPU isn't really involved in video capturing/processing anyway. That would be the DSP and GPU. Your question assumes a relationship between the CPU and photo/video processing where there is almost none.
    That would depend on the app/program. Not all x86 apps are optimized to use the GPU when doing things such as image processing. Photoshop still doesn't use the GPU as efficiently as it can. It is still optimized to use the systems CPU via multi-threading. Multiple processor and (now) multi-core CPU systems were developed because of programs like Photoshop and other CPU hungry apps and programs.
    07-16-2015 03:33 PM
  25. a5cent's Avatar
    That would depend on the app/program. Not all x86 apps are optimized to use the GPU when doing things such as image processing. Photoshop still doesn't use the GPU as efficiently as it can. It is still optimized to use the systems CPU via multi-threading. Multiple processor and (now) multi-core CPU systems were developed because of programs like Photoshop and other CPU hungry apps and programs.
    True, then again, Photoshop wasn't developed for or with smartphones in mind, but for desktops with powerful hardware, so offloading to the GPU isn't as important as it is on a smartphone. More importantly, Harrie-S asked specifically about video capture/processing, not Photoshop like image processing, where efficiency is even more important, as the CPU would buckle under most circumstances.

    None of the 1st party apps delegate any video related tasks to anything but the DSP/GPU (and a media processor actually, which I'm just lumping together with the GPU here). All video related APIs which are provided by the OS for use by 3rd party apps also delegate to the DSP/GPU. I'm sure you can find some dev somewhere that attempted to do video processing on the CPU, but that app's feature set won't go beyond cutting/appending video segments (at least it shouldn't if it wants more than a 1-star rating).

    Photoshop like image editing is a different story, as most devs aren't as comfortable working with the GPU as they are with the CPU, and no doubt a lot of image filters are CPU based, but that's not what Harrie-S asked about.
    Last edited by a5cent; 07-16-2015 at 06:45 PM. Reason: slight clarifications
    07-16-2015 04:13 PM
56 123

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone using a gamepad or controller with their Windows phone?
    By JamesDax in forum Phone & Tablet Gaming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-28-2015, 12:05 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-22-2015, 11:28 PM
  3. Should I buy a 1520 or wait for a new flagship?
    By Sam Picar in forum General Phone Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-19-2015, 06:13 AM
  4. Does time stay on the sleep screen always or can it be removed?
    By Windows Central Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-18-2015, 06:36 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD