ARM or Intel?

[Harrie-S]

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.

 

[a5cent]

Re: "940" or Intel?

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.

 

[Harrie-S]

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]

^ Exactly!

 

[sinime]

Wouldn't the only advantage be running desktop applications, either directly on the phone's screen, or limited to a desktop mode / continuum?

 

[nohra]

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.

 

[rhapdog]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[anon(7901790)]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[ivanflo]

Can't we drop the annoying numbers, give me the surface phone, surface phone pro and surface phone pro+, then give me the Lumia, the Lumia pro and Lumia pro+.

This satisfies the 6 devices that they said they would make a year. Lumias all plastic, surface all metal. This allows the brands to exist together and still extol the core virtues of synonymous with each brand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Ivanfoster.com

 

[Wolfseye]

I agree. Too many freakin numbers. Who really can remember what all the Models are/were without getting confused. Since MS is limiting their outcome to 6 phones per year, why not really make it simple. Especially, if at least it were steady numbers. Like start low and then go up. But with Lumia phones its like smaller numbers, bigger numbers, even bigger numbers, smaller numbers again, medium numbers, smaller numbers.... Thats confusing as hell.

Wolfseye

 

[anon(7901790)]

I agree. Too many freakin numbers. Who really can remember what all the Models are/were without getting confused. Since MS is limiting their outcome to 6 phones per year, why not really make it simple. Especially, if at least it were steady numbers. Like start low and then go up. But with Lumia phones its like smaller numbers, bigger numbers, even bigger numbers, smaller numbers again, medium numbers, smaller numbers.... Thats confusing as hell.

Wolfseye

It's a holdover from Nokia. But to simplify it.

900 and 1000 Series (e.g. Lumia 925, 929 (Icon), 930, 1020, 1520 etc.) are their flagship lines of phones.
600, 700, and 800 Series (e.g. Lumia 640 & 640XL, 735, 830 etc.) are their mid-level lines of phones
500 and lower, as well as Asha Series (e.g. Lumia 530, 225 Dual SIM, Asha 503 Dual SIM) are their low-end lines of phones.

As far as calling the Surface Phones, I'd rather they just use the Lumia name for all tiers of phones and keep the Surface for their tablet lines. Keeping numbers is fine. Just pair down the numbers to three series. Maybe keep 500 series for low-end phones, 800 series for enterprise phones and 900 series for flagship. Then just put XL or L for the phablet version if there is one (I'm not sure making a low-end phablet would be wise).

 

[a5cent]

Folks, this thread isn't about the Lumia numbering system. Keep the thread on topic please.

 

[anon(7901790)]

Actually a better title for this thread should be ARM or Intel?

To correct myself, Intel does have an x86 SoC. It announced the X3 back in Mar, but I haven't seen a whole lot about it. It also is targeted at budget phones in eastern markets.

Intel unveils its next mobile maneuver: Atom x3, x5, and x7 | Ars Technica

Intel has an uphill battle though. Even though, both Google and Microsoft would both benefit by transitioning to x86 in the long run. It would simplify code writing for both Android and Windows and make universal app development easier for Chrome, Android, and Windows.

P.S. Apple would be better served by making iPhone, iPad, and iPod with x86 as well. Why? The same reason it would benefit Google and Microsoft. One app to run on all devices. Mac's also run on x86 chips (have been for years).

The biggest beneficiary would be Microsoft though. Mainly because of its HUGE foothold in the x86 device market.

 

[a5cent]

Actually a better title for this thread should be ARM or Intel?

Agreed, that would have been a much better title. Changed.