Does WP8 support Quad Core already?

[hopmedic]

The reason people say this is because they have never seen a quad core WP. Imagine apps loading instantly, instead of seeing "loading..." or "resuming...". Or imagine how much better WP games would be...

No, the reason people say this is because they live in reality. Show me where a Quad-core android beats the fluidity of my Windows Phone, and then we can continue the conversation. Without that, it's over.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

Hey i am very happy with my dual cores, but it wont hurt me to have a quad, will it!?

 

[neo158]

Hey i am very happy with my dual cores, but it wont hurt me to have a quad, will it!?

It will if the apps and games you use aren't optimised for quad core processors!!!!

 

[martinmc78]

It will if the apps and games you use aren't optimised for quad core processors!!!!

That's exactly what makes me chuckle about PC processors - You may have a super expensive 8 core intel processor but please give me a list of all the games and programmes optimised for 8 cores.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

Apps if not optimised for multiple cores, will work fine anyway! Its not like a single core/dual core will provide faster speed than quad core!
& As for all the list of games and programs, i really dont have a list, but try running Microsoft Flight Simulator X on a single/dual/quad core. Even if thats not enogh, render a video in afte effects, it puts my quad 3rd Gen i5 to its limits! I already want an quad with 8 hyperthreads. & there are some people who need processong power, i dont know if you have heard of championswimmer, just google that name, he is my friend and neighbour, he just ordered a Xeon Octa with hyperthreading, if you google what he does, you'll know why!

That's exactly what makes me chuckle about PC processors - You may have a super expensive 8 core intel processor but please give me a list of all the games and programmes optimised for 8 cores.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

Or X-plane if you are keen to understand why raw processing power is required.
There are some places where there is simply no replacement for displacement. (Yeah its a auto industry line but you get the point anyway)

 

[thed]

I don't understand why people wouldn't want a better CPU in your phone. Developers have no incentive to optimize for hardware that's not even available yet. You have to give them the hardware first, and then they'll take advantage of it. Not the other way around.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

On the other hand, i found someone's thread about jetpack joyride being released.
http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-phone-apps/229483-jet-pack-joyride-released.html

 

[hopmedic]

If you like your battery better than your spec sheet it will.

 

[hopmedic]

I don't understand why people wouldn't want a better CPU in your phone. Developers have no incentive to optimize for hardware that's not even available yet. You have to give them the hardware first, and then they'll take advantage of it. Not the other way around.

Because currently the trade-off is battery life.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

Yeah i would want more battery life, but only on my mobile, someone said this thing about who needs a 8core super expensive intel processor, i know i do!

 

[martinmc78]

Yeah i would want more battery life, but only on my mobile, someone said this thing about who needs a 8core super expensive intel processor, i know i do!

The point I was trying to get at is that the software isn't optimised for the hardware. Also the reason I said list out programmes optimised for 8 cores is that I know its a small list in niche markets. Sitting at home in your boxers playing on Battlefield 3 wont push an octacore even on max settings.

Having more than you need is a waste. Yes you can have an octacore phone but its going to have a massive battery be bigger than a 920 and cost you more than a MacBook air.

Makes more sense from a business point of view to provide processing power based on the requirements of the OS and make devs work to that than give extra power that the OS doesn't use to app developers meanwhile driving up the cost and size of the phones.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

I whole heartedly agree with this point, but i would still like to see a quad core flagship just for the sake of show off! & yes no pc games push an octa or even a quad to limits, but many software do. I played lot of MS FSX & use after effects and i know!

The point I was trying to get at is that the software isn't optimised for the hardware. Also the reason I said list out programmes optimised for 8 cores is that I know its a small list in niche markets. Sitting at home in your boxers playing on Battlefield 3 wont push an octacore even on max settings.

Having more than you need is a waste. Yes you can have an octacore phone but its going to have a massive battery be bigger than a 920 and cost you more than a MacBook air.

Makes more sense from a business point of view to provide processing power based on the requirements of the OS and make devs work to that than give extra power that the OS doesn't use to app developers meanwhile driving up the cost and size of the phones.

 

[martinmc78]

I whole heartedly agree with this point, but i would still like to see a quad core flagship just for the sake of show off! & yes no pc games push an octa or even a quad to limits, but many software do. I played lot of MS FSX & use after effects and i know!

Yes on PC its acceptable for 8 cores if your going to use them - Ive got a 8 core AMD at work for running 3DStudiomax and the renders on that get pretty core hungry. But mobile apps? seriously? Its going to be at least a decade before we start seeing any apps that intense. Theres bound to be a quad core WP by next year and it will fly but the bottom line is at the moment its just not needed for WP8. WP9 may be a different story

 

[a5cent]

Apps if not optimised for multiple cores, will work fine anyway! Its not like a single core/dual core will provide faster speed than quad core!

This is so terribly wrong!

You're making the typical mistake of equating core count to CPU performance. That is a common mistake, because that is exactly what you would expect to see in the PC space. As such, it isn't surprising that all the examples you site are from the PC world, where CPU's are explicitly designed to work that way. This is nothing but a consequence of Intel's and AMD's business models. Since PC CPU cores within a generation are identical, fewer cores = fewer transistors = lower manufacturing costs = CPU's that can be sold at lower prices but potentially offer less performance (although depending on the software used there may be no performance difference at all).

However, there is no law in physics or integrated circuit design that states it must be so!

CPU's in the mobile space are entirely different, as are the business models. You start out with a transistor and power budget and then go from there. If you have the same numbers of transistors to invest in either a dual-core or a quad-core design, the question of which will perform better is a very tricky one. Here, all your experiences from the PC world break down completely. The performance difference between the MSM8960 and Tegra 3 is just one example. The later is a quad-core, whereas the former is just a dual-core, but it is the much better performing CPU regardless.

I don't agree with the notion that we don't need more powerful hardware. As long as battery life isn't reduced any further (it's bad enough as it is), we should welcome any and all further performance gains.

However, we do need to abandon this false assumption that more cores = better performance. It's far to simplistic and in the mobile space, although it can be true, it doesn't have to be.

Qualcomm is adding some quad-core parts at the lower end, but there is no getting around the fact that each of those cores will perform worse then the cores in their dual-core offerings. That is bad enough as it is, but the situation gets even worse once we take into account the types of software we run on our smartphones, but I won't get into that now.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

See i meant that if you have a processor, use it as a single core, make a dual core out of the same one, and a quad using 4 such processors, performance will increase if all other variables are same, & i assumed everyone will assume this, i know very well what all factors combine to make up for the overall performance.

This is so terribly wrong!

You're making the typical mistake of equating core count to CPU performance. That is a common mistake, because that is exactly what you would expect to see in the PC space. As such, it isn't surprising that all the examples you site are from the PC world, where CPU's are explicitly designed to work that way. This is nothing but a consequence of Intel's and AMD's business models. Since PC CPU cores within a generation are identical, fewer cores = fewer transistors = lower manufacturing costs = CPU's that can be sold at lower prices but potentially offer less performance (although depending on the software used there may be no performance difference at all).

However, there is no law in physics or integrated circuit design that states it must be so!

CPU's in the mobile space are entirely different, as are the business models. You start out with a transistor and power budget and then go from there. If you have the same numbers of transistors to invest in either a dual-core or a quad-core design, the question of which will perform better is a very tricky one. Here, all your experiences from the PC world break down completely. The performance difference between the MSM8960 and Tegra 3 is just one example. The later is a quad-core, whereas the former is just a dual-core, but it is the much better performing CPU regardless.

I don't agree with the notion that we don't need more powerful hardware. As long as battery life isn't reduced any further (it's bad enough as it is), we should welcome any and all further performance gains.

However, we do need to abandon this false assumption that more cores = better performance. It's far to simplistic and in the mobile space, although it can be true, it doesn't have to be.

 

[a5cent]

See i meant that if you have a processor, use it as a single core, make a dual core out of the same one, and a quad using 4 such processors, performance will increase if all other variables are same, & i assumed everyone will assume this, i know very well what all factors combine to make up for the overall performance.

My point is, it is wrong to assume that! Because that is not how processors are designed in the mobile space.

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

I disagree, why would it be wrong? I give you a phone, (assuming it doesn't work on some centuries old single process OS,) everything is same, except one has single core and other has dual? Wouldn't it affect the performance?

 

[a5cent]

I disagree, why would it be wrong? I give you a phone, (assuming it doesn't work on some centuries old single process OS,) everything is same, except one has single core and other has dual? Wouldn't it affect the performance?

I'm probably not explaining this well, but I'll try again:

If all three cores are identical (and we ignore the role of multithreaded software and assume it scales perfectly, which software never does) then you are correct. The dual-core device will perform better. My point is that this scenario is entirely unrealistic for mobile CPUs, because the cores in those devices aren't always identical!

Like I said, you need only look at Qualcomm's product line-up. The cores in their quad-core CPUs (those SoC's that target smartphones) have less powerful cores than their dual-core siblings. Your comparison breaks down when the cores aren't identical. That simply doesn't happen in the PC space, but it is commonplace on mobile.

Arguing from the position that 2x the cores = 2x the performance is just plain wrong in the mobile space (even without considering the affects of software), but that is what many have been doing. That is my point.

 

[Sanjay Chandra]

Apps if not optimised for multiple cores, will work fine anyway! Its not like a single core/dual core will provide faster speed than quad core!
& As for all the list of games and programs, i really dont have a list, but try running Microsoft Flight Simulator X on a single/dual/quad core. Even if thats not enogh, render a video in afte effects, it puts my quad 3rd Gen i5 to its limits! I already want an quad with 8 hyperthreads. & there are some people who need processong power, i dont know if you have heard of championswimmer, just google that name, he is my friend and neighbour, he just ordered a Xeon Octa with hyperthreading, if you google what he does, you'll know why!

Battery Life my friend !!

Nokia CEO calls multi-core processors a waste of battery life | BGR