Has microsoft made an oath to stay behind the competition?

[maverick786us]

I do agree that 1080P will be of no use for 4.5 inch screen. However when nokia release something similar to EOS having 5.2 inch or bigger screen, 1080P will be a sweet spot. For Lumia 1020 we do need the firepower of fastest quad core maybe Snapdragon 800 or whatever or image processing of 41MP camera. I don't know how 808 pureview works with a slow processor.

Lumia 1020 is a unique device of its own with main stress on camera. If Nokia releases a successor of Lumia 920, it should have a 5.2 inch screen with 21MP camera containing all the same features of Lumia 920. 1080P screen with Quad core will perfectly fit with that device

 

[a5cent]

For Lumia 1020 we do need the firepower of fastest quad core maybe Snapdragon 800 or whatever or image processing of 41MP camera. I don't know how 808 pureview works with a slow processor.

Could you imagine that there might be a better way for the Lumia 1020 to do image processing than by "brute-forcing it" with the "firepower of the fastest quad core CPU". If you think that is the only way a Lumia 1020 could get the job done, are you then suggesting that WP is that much more inefficient than Symbian, which didn't require such a CPU for the job?

The reason it worked on the 808 is because the CPU and the number of cores were completely irrelevant. Nokia used a separate image processing chip for that task.

How would you feel about a jockey wanting a better animal for his races, and then calling for a better, faster and stronger turtle to get that job done? Well, that is what your post sounds like to me (no offence intended, after all, computing is a lot more complicated than jockeying) :wink: In terms of image processing, our beloved quad-core Krait 400 CPU (in the Snapdragon 800 SoC) is a turtle!

Instead, you should be asking for a better DSP and a better GPU (horses for image processing). Not only would they get the image processing job done much faster, but also use a lot less power while doing so. Look up the term "stream-processing" for an introductory explanation as to why the CPU isn't the right tool for any image processing job.

My point is that the fastest quad-core CPU won't help us with image processing, because smartphones usually use other computational units for that job (just like Nokia's lens apps are primarily GPU based).

The good new is that even the Snapdragon 600 has a great GPU (much better than what we currently have). The GPU in the Snapdragon 800 is phenomenal, but we won't see that in average sized WP smartphones. If we ever see it in a WP device at all, it will be in large WP phablets or tablets.

 

[EchoRedux]

I like how people have concerns over the CPU despite the 808 having a 1.3 GHz single core processor. I also like when people say quad core is mandatory for 1080p but that's a different story. :winktongue:

 

[maverick786us]

Could you imagine that there might be a better way for the Lumia 1020 to do image processing than by "brute-forcing it" with the "firepower of the fastest quad core CPU". If you think that is the only way a Lumia 1020 could get the job done, are you then suggesting that WP is that much more inefficient than Symbian, which didn't require such a CPU for the job?

The reason it worked on the 808 is because the CPU and the number of cores were completely irrelevant. Nokia used a separate image processing chip for that task.

How would you feel about a jockey wanting a better animal for his races, and then calling for a better, faster and stronger turtle to get that job done? Well, that is what your post sounds like to me (no offence intended, after all, computing is a lot more complicated than jockeying) :wink: In terms of image processing, our beloved quad-core Krait 400 CPU (in the Snapdragon 800 SoC) is a turtle!

Instead, you should be asking for a better DSP and a better GPU (horses for image processing). Not only would they get the image processing job done much faster, but also use a lot less power while doing so. Look up the term "stream-processing" for an introductory explanation as to why the CPU isn't the right tool for any image processing job.

My point is that the fastest quad-core CPU won't help us with image processing, because smartphones usually use other computational units for that job (just like Nokia's lens apps are primarily GPU based).

The good new is that even the Snapdragon 600 has a great GPU (much better than what we currently have). The GPU in the Snapdragon 800 is phenomenal, but we won't see that in average sized WP smartphones. If we ever see it in a WP device at all, it will be in large WP phablets or tablets.

Yes a good GPU is needed for that image processing, but the CPU has to be fast enough so that it doesn't create a CPU - GPU bottleneck

 

[tissotti]

I'm personally still a bit baffled why peope would be against example Qualcomm 800 if it doesn't affect battery life. Symbian's death was much to do with underpowered devices, the low RAM warning is a legend itself that was norm for years. 808 had the slowest browser of that gen and UI speed was WAY behind Android, WP or iOS. Saying as your fellow old time Nokia fan with 808PV.

We are fans of WP or Nokia here, but you as a customer and especially as a fan should always demand for the best. The good enough thinking wont cut it and it should be the fans asking for better as the general popilation is still figuring out there's something else than Android and iOS out there.

 

[a5cent]

I'm personally still a bit baffled why peope would be against example Qualcomm 800 if it doesn't affect battery life.

I'm not against the Snapdragon 800 per se. I'm not really against anything here. I'm just trying to explain that the Krait 400 cores will be useless in those areas where the OP expects them to help.

IF there are no battery life issues, I have no problem with the Snapdragon 800, but I expect there will be. Firstly, Qualcomm markets the Snapdragon 800 primarily as a tablet SoC. It's not really intended for Smartphones. Secondly, that Samsung had to add four lower-end cores to their Exynos 5 Octa, on which most of the day to day processing is actually done, also suggests we can't get reasonable battery life from four A15 class cores in a smartphone sized package. If Krait 400 is at all similar to the standard A15 cores, then they too will require 6 times as much power to offer 5 times the performance, meaning they are less efficient than their smaller siblings... poorer efficiency is the bane of good for battery.

However, I agree that the final word is still out on the issue.

 

[a5cent]

Yes a good GPU is needed for that image processing, but the CPU has to be fast enough so that it doesn't create a CPU - GPU bottleneck

You will have to back that up. I suspect you are inventing some rational to justify something you just want. If that's true, it's far better to just admit that you just want the best for the sake of having the best. I don't know every GPU intensive app in existence, but I don't know of a single one on any platform that is CPU bound on any device. All are inherently GPU bound.

Image processing that is done on the GPU, which is what we are discussing here, is never CPU bound.

 

[maverick786us]

You will have to back that up. I suspect you are inventing some rational to justify something you just want. If that's true, it's far better to just admit that you just want the best for the sake of having the best. I don't know every GPU intensive app in existence, but I don't know of a single one on any platform that is CPU bound on any device. All are inherently GPU bound.

Image processing that is done on the GPU, which is what we are discussing here, is never CPU bound.

You do not understand the concept of CPU / GPU bottle neck. In order to run a fast GPU, the CPU has to be fast enough so that it can provide instructions to the GPU

 

[a5cent]

You do not understand the concept of CPU / GPU bottle neck. In order to run a fast GPU, the CPU has to be fast enough so that it can provide instructions to the GPU

Wrong. You are the one that does not understand.

We are talking about GPU based image processing, and in that use case we will never encounter a CPU bottleneck. Why? Because after handing over the image that is to be processed to the GPU, there is nothing left for the CPU to do. The CPU could instantly proceed to handing off the next image, while the GPU still has millions of pixels to process. There can be no CPU bottleneck in this scenario.

I won't go into 3D games because that's a lot more complicated, but there too, at least on modern smartphones, we are nowhere close to experiencing CPU bottlenecks (mainly due to the workload generated by ever higher resolution displays increasing faster than GPU performance).

It seems you think that CPU and GPU work in unison, with the CPU constantly streaming data to the GPU and therefore having to 'keep up'. That is not at all how this works.

 

[maverick786us]

Wrong. You are the one that does not understand.

We are talking about GPU based image processing, and in that use case we will never encounter a CPU bottleneck. Why? Because after handing over the image that is to be processed to the GPU, there is nothing left for the CPU to do. The CPU could instantly proceed to handing off the next image, while the GPU still has millions of pixels to process. There can be no CPU bottleneck in this scenario.

I won't go into 3D games because that's a lot more complicated, but there too, at least on modern smartphones, we are nowhere close to experiencing CPU bottlenecks (mainly due to the workload generated by ever higher resolution displays increasing faster than GPU performance).

It seems you think that CPU and GPU work in unison, with the CPU constantly streaming data to the GPU and therefore having to 'keep up'. That is not at all how this works.

In gaming it works in union. The CPU has to be fast enough to completely stretch the legs of GPU. Just like the way you can't expect GTX Titan or 780 to run upto its full potential in an old CPU like Core 2 Duo. You need a fast quad core like 3770K or 4770K.

Similarly in this case I am not sure if a slow CPU might create a bottleneck for the GPU

 

[EchoRedux]

I don't think you'll see added performance playing games with a i7 3770K over a i5 3570K with same RAM and graphics card at any resolution.

 

[Brad Spry]

We put men on the Moon with 64K of memory and a 0.043MHz processor.
Interview with Allan Klumpp

 

[maverick786us]

I don't think you'll see added performance playing games with a i7 3770K over a i5 3570K with same RAM and graphics card at any resolution.

Yes we wouldn't because both are quad core CPUs with specs almost similar. 3770K offers HP over 3570K which hardly makes any difference in gaming. However if you compare any of these CPUs with a Core i3, it will create a bottleneck if you are using a GTX titan or GTC 780 in gaming.

The same principle might be applied with smartphones, If they have a good GPU, they need a good CPU to provide that horsepower

 

[EchoRedux]

I haven't checked prices, but if I had to guess, I'd put both of those graphics cards in a price range above what a Lumia 920 costs off contract. Do you think there is a is a GPU/CPU bottleneck between the latest Adreno and say, the single core snapdragon S2 on my Focus S? There's a bottleneck, but I doubt it would be in the GPU or CPU.