1. bijak_riyandi's Avatar
    I don't really understand about these trio in their roles on the performance of a computer/smartphone...
    I'm sure a damn lot of people out there don't understand about this, either...

    which one is better? more cores, faster core, or more RAM?

    perhaps you can break it down to:
    what difference should we expect in each scenario if there are two phones with:
    1. same speed and RAM, different amount of cores
    2. same amount of cores and RAM, different clock speed
    3. same amount of cores and clock speed, different RAM

    thanks in advance
    06-26-2014 08:00 AM
  2. Zulfigar's Avatar
    Cores equals how many processes the computer can think about at a time.
    Clock speed is how fast they can think about the information.
    RAM is the information that is queued up to be thought about, like a person's short term memory.

    Hopefully this makes sense? It all works together to make a perfect beast, so the more, the better. I wonder how long it'll take somebody to make a dedicated graphics unit inside the phones though.
    bijak_riyandi and xandros9 like this.
    06-26-2014 08:18 AM
  3. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    This question is not easy to answer as there's no real way to compare CPUs properly. If we're talking about the same family of everything you asked then it gets easier.

    1. More cores allows for multiprocessing and this comes down to the OS and the software written. You can have 16 cores and won't matter much if the OS and software isn't optimized to use it.
    2. When comparing the same family of CPU than yes, faster clock speed will give you better performance.
    3. Again, when comparing the same family type of CPU more RAM will provide better overall performance.

    So as you can see in general all have their advantages. You have to keep in mind that the CPU family or the brand cannot really be compared to another CPU family or brand easily. To do that, you have to look at overall system performance. To do that you need to have identical RAM and software to do a fair comparison.
    bijak_riyandi likes this.
    06-26-2014 08:32 AM
  4. bijak_riyandi's Avatar
    thanks for the explanation :)
    highly understandable

    so we can expect that the 920 should do better than the 630 in processing stuffs, right?
    06-26-2014 08:33 AM
  5. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    thanks for the explanation :)
    highly understandable

    so we can expect that the 920 should do better than the 630 in processing stuffs, right?
    Not necessarily. The 630 has a quadcore and WP OS is capable of using up to 64 cores. It's also a different family of CPU. You cannot compare them that easily. In reality the 630 may perform better than the 920 in some things. The only bottleneck would be the RAM but even then it still may outperform the 920.
    06-26-2014 08:39 AM
  6. bijak_riyandi's Avatar
    Not necessarily. The 630 has a quadcore and WP OS is capable of using up to 64 cores. It's also a different family of CPU. You cannot compare them that easily. In reality the 630 may perform better than the 920 in some things. The only bottleneck would be the RAM but even then it still may outperform the 920.
    is there another thing that's specific to the CPU family which can affect the performance?
    06-26-2014 08:44 AM
  7. Zulfigar's Avatar
    Not necessarily. The 630 has a quadcore and WP OS is capable of using up to 64 cores. It's also a different family of CPU. You cannot compare them that easily. In reality the 630 may perform better than the 920 in some things. The only bottleneck would be the RAM but even then it still may outperform the 920.
    See, that's where I'm confused about too. Does .3 GHz really result in that much processing power when there slower one has more cores? I'd actually imagine the 630 out performing a 920 because the speed isn't that much of a difference (1.2 vs 1.5), but the only thing keeping the 920 ahead is the ram (.5 GB vs 1 GB) which means it can do more at once. I'd like to see someone do specific jobs with both of them and see what happens. My poor 920 might be beaten, but it's still a highly robust and efficient phone.
    06-26-2014 08:53 AM
  8. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    See, that's where I'm confused about too. Does .3 GHz really result in that much processing power when there slower one has more cores? I'd actually imagine the 630 out performing a 920 because the speed isn't that much of a difference (1.2 vs 1.5), but the only thing keeping the 920 ahead is the ram (.5 GB vs 1 GB) which means it can do more at once. I'd like to see someone do specific jobs with both of them and see what happens. My poor 920 might be beaten, but it's still a highly robust and efficient phone.
    To answer your question, if the 630 had 1GB of RAM it would probably smoke the L920 in my opinion. The problem is however that the two CPU are different technologies. It isn't black and white unfortunately. It's possible the 920 has some other things that could make it better but that's hard to know without going over the white papers and understanding them. But from a cursory glance it would appear the 630 processor is better overall.

    If you're at all interested you could go over things yourself.

    630 processor - Snapdragon 400 processors | Mobile Technology | Qualcomm Snapdragon Processors
    920 processor (S4 Plus) - Snapdragon S4 Product Specs
    06-26-2014 09:05 AM
  9. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    is there another thing that's specific to the CPU family which can affect the performance?
    It's different technology so it's a bit hard to compare the two. See my post above.
    06-26-2014 09:06 AM
  10. xandros9's Avatar
    I like to use a desk metaphor.

    You're working at a desk, the more desk space (RAM) you have, the more documents and papers you can have easy access to without having to put papers away or stacking papers on top of them, slowing things down. Useful for games which have a lot of "papers" and keeping multiple things at once on the desk.

    Cores would equate more arms I guess, you have the capability to process more stuff simultaneously, but if your brain (software) doesn't know how to handle those arms properly, there isn't much benefit.

    Clock speed would be how fast you work through stuff.
    bijak_riyandi likes this.
    06-26-2014 09:26 AM
  11. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    I like to use a desk metaphor.

    You're working at a desk, the more desk space (RAM) you have, the more documents and papers you can have easy access to without having to put papers away or stacking papers on top of them, slowing things down. Useful for games which have a lot of "papers" and keeping multiple things at once on the desk.

    Cores would equate more arms I guess, you have the capability to process more stuff simultaneously, but if your brain (software) doesn't know how to handle those arms properly, there isn't much benefit.

    Clock speed would be how fast you work through stuff.
    I agree with your analogies.

    So which is faster - Quadcore 1.2GHz or Dualcore 1.5GHz lets say both have the same RAM.

    Is the comparison straightforward?
    xandros9 likes this.
    06-26-2014 09:30 AM
  12. Blacklac's Avatar
    I seem to remember a performance review, including benchmarks, between the 1320 and 1020. It was a blog post. I'm sure if you search "1320" you will find it. Too many 1020 articles now. :p
    06-26-2014 09:34 AM
  13. wuiyang's Avatar
    I don't really understand about these trio in their roles on the performance of a computer/smartphone...
    I'm sure a damn lot of people out there don't understand about this, either...

    which one is better? more cores, faster core, or more RAM?

    perhaps you can break it down to:
    what difference should we expect in each scenario if there are two phones with:
    1. same speed and RAM, different amount of cores
    2. same amount of cores and RAM, different clock speed
    3. same amount of cores and clock speed, different RAM

    thanks in advance
    if gaming, go for 3.
    if multitasking, go for 1
    if using phone for large amount of calculation(program), go for 2
    06-26-2014 09:46 AM
  14. wuiyang's Avatar
    I agree with your analogies.

    So which is faster - Quadcore 1.2GHz or Dualcore 1.5GHz lets say both have the same RAM.

    Is the comparison straightforward?
    1.2GHz * 4 = 4.8GHz
    1.5GHz * 2 = 3.0GHz
    quadcore was faster than dualcore at here
    06-26-2014 09:47 AM
  15. Blacklac's Avatar
    I seem to remember a performance review, including benchmarks, between the 1320 and 1020. It was a blog post. I'm sure if you search "1320" you will find it. Too many 1020 articles now. :p
    Sorry, it was the 630!

    http://www.windowscentral.com/lumia-...der-lumia-1020
    N_LaRUE likes this.
    06-26-2014 09:49 AM
  16. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    1.2GHz * 4 = 4.8GHz
    1.5GHz * 2 = 3.0GHz
    quadcore was faster than dualcore at here
    I tend to agree with you but I don't think it is really that simple.
    xandros9 likes this.
    06-26-2014 09:57 AM
  17. Catholic Tech Geek's Avatar
    There is a very important distinction missing here. The number of cores deals with multi-threading. The more cores, the more that additional created threads can be distributed among cores to process program instructions (in parallel) and ease the processing load. In order to take advantage of more cores, the program has to be written with multi-threading in mind. Here is an example: I have a dual-core processor, but my program is written with a single core processor in mind. There is nothing you (as the user) can do to make the program take advantage of the extra available processor core.
    xandros9, a5cent and bijak_riyandi like this.
    06-26-2014 10:03 AM
  18. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    There is a very important distinction missing here. The number of cores deals with multi-threading. The more cores, the more that additional created threads can be distributed among cores to process program instructions (in parallel) and ease the processing load. In order to take advantage of more cores, the program has to be written with multi-threading in mind. Here is an example: I have a dual-core processor, but my program is written with a single core processor in mind. There is nothing you (as the user) can do to make the program take advantage of the extra available processor core.
    I did make some mention of it in my first comment. Maybe not as thorough as yours but I did make a point of it.
    06-26-2014 10:10 AM
  19. bijak_riyandi's Avatar
    from that one, we can see that the 630 runs OS apps better, while the 1020 runs 3rd party apps better

    but the problem is that the 1020 wasn't using the Lumia Cyan, so the OS apps might not be optimized for it

    perhaps we will see another comparison when the Lumia Cyan rolls out to the 1020?
    xandros9 likes this.
    06-26-2014 07:43 PM
  20. a5cent's Avatar
    1.2GHz * 4 = 4.8GHz
    1.5GHz * 2 = 3.0GHz
    quadcore was faster than dualcore at here
    This is likely a typical way of thinking about it, but it is just plain wrong.

    To answer your question, if the 630 had 1GB of RAM it would probably smoke the L920 in my opinion.
    You are mistaken about the 630. In practice the 920 will be faster at almost everything, with the rendering of complicated web pages possibly being the only exception. You are making the typical mistake of overestimating the importance of the number of cores vs the performance of each core, and underestimating the importance of software! That last one is the biggest mistake people make, because it is the most important factor when determining how a CPU will affect perceived performance in everyday use. The fact that the WP app store contains essentially zero apps that make use of four cores, means the third and fourth cores in the Lumia 630 won't be doing much most of the time.

    On the other hand, I completely agree with the main point you are making. Comparing different smartphone CPUs is very difficult. If the number of cores and clock frequency is all you've got to go on, then those specs are only useful for comparing CPU's that are very similar. Otherwise core count and clock frequency are just good cover-ups for what is essentially guesswork.

    from that one, we can see that the 630 runs OS apps better, while the 1020 runs 3rd party apps better
    I don't see that. In fact, I don't see the benchmarks in that article revealing anything at all really.

    Above, Catholic Tech Geek mentioned how important it is to differentiate between single- and multi-core performance. He couldn't be more correct. What are these benchmarks showing us however? The article doesn't say, but they appear to be multi-threaded tests (as are most benchmarks). But think... what exactly does that tell us, considering that almost no smartphone apps are heavily multi-threaded? Answer: Nothing....

    That is the problem with the benchmarks used in the WPC article you found. Worse yet, that benchmarking app WPC used just provides some unit-less numbers. The benchmarking app doesn't even tell us what those numbers represent. If you don't know what is being measured, then the measurements themselves are meaningless, and that is pretty much the situation we have here. Well, those benchmarks aren't completely meaningless. They do tell us which device is best at running that particular benchmarking app. However, unless you intend to use your phone primarily to run that benchmarking app, that information isn't very helpful (that is one of the main reasons PC graphics cards are predominantly tested using actual games, not GPU benchmarks). Any benchmark must tell us what is being measured (just stating 'system' or 'web' is rather ridiculous, it means nothing). Without that knowledge, we can't say how, or even if, the differences between devices translates into meaningful differences during everyday use. That however, is the only thing that really matters!

    I can easily write a benchmark "proving" the 630 is four times faster than the 920, but I can also write a benchmark showing that the 630 is only half as fast as the 920. Neither of those benchmarks means anything, unless I also tell you exactly what is being measured! I hope I'm driving that point home.

    Here are examples of more useful benchmarks:
    Motorola Moto G (uses the exact same SoC as in the Lumia 630)
    Motorole Droid RAZR HD (uses the exact same SoC as in the Lumia 920)

    When it comes to determining how well a device performs in everyday use, the single-core measurements are the most important by far. As you can see, the Lumia 920's single core performance is 43% higher than the Lumia 630's. You can think of this as meaning that each core in the Lumia 920 is (on average) 43% more powerful than each core in a Lumia 630. Because the circumstances under which more than two cores are simultaneously active are very rare, the Lumia 920 will usually perform better. Roughly 43% better, but here too, it depends on the app. That 43% is just the average of all single threaded tests, but if the CPU workloads generated by those benchmarks aren't similar to the ones generated by the apps you run, then they aren't meaningful. That 43% number should just be considered a rough approximation.

    If the app uses a second thread then CPU related performance on the Lumia 920 will be roughly 86% better. Only once an app utilizes more than two threads simultaneously will the advantage start swinging back in the Lumia 630's favour. Like I said, such exceptions are rare, but they do exist. The most important exception is likely IE. Web browsers often can make use of more than two cores, but to what degree depends on the web pages that are being loaded.

    I realize this may not be what people want to hear. Some people find this fascinating, but for other's it's nothing but frustrating because they want simple answers. In reality there are no simple answers when it comes to CPU technology. CPUs belong to the most complex machines humans have ever built. It's good to keep things simple, but reducing them to two numbers, core count and clock frequency, takes that a bit far.

    RAM is a different issue entirely, but that would be a topic for a different post. I believe the GPU hasn't been mentioned at all so far, but it too is a very important component when it comes to perceived performance on a smartphone.
    Last edited by a5cent; 06-27-2014 at 09:41 AM. Reason: clarifications/improvements here and there
    06-26-2014 10:29 PM
  21. pankaj981's Avatar
    Also keep in mind the graphics chipset in 920 is powerful than the 635. It's like a comparison between i7+GT620 vs i5+GT580/HD6990. Having a better graphics chip takes off the load from the CPU for graphics processing (playing games, watching videos, animations, etc.). Also, as some have mentioned above, unless the program in written to take advantage of multiple cores, having multiple cores is not much beneficial
    Sent from Tapatalk on my Nokia Lumia 925 running WP8.1
    06-26-2014 10:53 PM
  22. bijak_riyandi's Avatar
    I don't see that. In fact, I don't see the benchmarks in that article revealing anything at all really.
    oops, confused that one with this:


    anyway, thanks for the lengthy information
    I understand it more now :)
    06-26-2014 11:04 PM
  23. euichii's Avatar
    Let me bookmark this for later reading
    06-26-2014 11:16 PM
  24. a5cent's Avatar
    oops, confused that one with this:[/url]

    anyway, thanks for the lengthy information
    I understand it more now :)
    Yup. All those tests that run entirely on the device show that the 1020 is noticeably faster.

    Any CPU performance test that involves a lot of communication over WiFi shouldn't be taken seriously however. Devices must take turns communicating with the WiFi router. That makes such tests like a hurdles race, where no more than one runner may be jumping an obstacle at any one time.
    Last edited by a5cent; 06-28-2014 at 07:20 AM.
    06-28-2014 05:54 AM
  25. bijak_riyandi's Avatar
    Yup. All those tests that run entirely on the device show that the 1020 is noticeably faster.

    Any CPU performance test that involves a lot of communication over WiFi shouldn't be taken seriously however. Devices must take turns communicating with the WiFi router. That makes such tests like a hurdles race, where no more than one runner may be jumping an obstacle at any one time.
    yeah, but the app (not the page) actually loaded a split second faster in the 1020
    so it's still a win?
    06-28-2014 09:39 AM

Similar Threads

  1. [WP8.1] Live Tile Clock *DIY*
    By Melon Metro in forum App Spotlight
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-21-2014, 09:10 AM
  2. asd
    By nishant maindargi in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-19-2014, 01:12 AM
  3. Clock Hub Probs
    By MadDogFL62 in forum Windows Phone 8.1
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-27-2014, 09:22 AM
  4. The sequel to the popular Dhoom:3 The Game is here time for the Jet Speed!
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2014, 12:13 PM
  5. GDR1 vs Black
    By Vitor Salvatore Pierce in forum Windows Phone 8.1
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-25-2014, 10:21 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD