Does WP8 support Quad Core already?

[Mike Gibson]

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.

That's not correct. Multiple cores are beneficial only when:

1. A program is multithreaded AND actually doing multiple complex operations at one time, or,
2. You're running multiple apps doing complex operations simultaneously (which isn't the case on most mobile operating systems).

Your WP8 processor core(s) are sitting idle most of the time. Adding more cores that sit idle most of the time won't help. I imagine the "multicore mania" in Android is mostly due to horrible Java performance. Relatively trivial things to do in C++ (loading PNGs, etc.) become major, time consuming operations in Java, so there's a benefit from doing them in parallel in Android. However, it's an artificial "need". My XAML+Direct3D WP8 app, written mostly in C++, loads megabytes of PNGs, megabytes of data, and creates many Direct3D structures at startup but it's effectively instantaneous.

 

[neo158]

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!

True, but does Flight Simulator X use all four cores and the same goes for After Effects. They'll still run but won't have the performance that they could have if properly optimised.

 

[GeorgeKan]

no big deal, Android has this too because it is based on linux kernels which have support for just about everything

 

[ClixT]

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.

A simple analogy would be: A motorcycle only has two wheels (dual core), but it's RPM and acceleration is wayy higher than a four wheeled (quad core) car. Right? lol

 

[hopmedic]

A simple analogy would be: A motorcycle only has two wheels (dual core), but it's RPM and acceleration is wayy higher than a four wheeled (quad core) car. Right? lol

A very simple analogy, but the more you think about it, an accurate one. The weight of Windows Phone OS (motorcycle) against the weight of Android (18 wheels, not four :wink, and you see why it only takes a 100 horsepower engine to pull Windows Phone, and a 500 horsepower engine to pull Android at the same speed (if it can make it to the same speed).

NICE!

 

[Vaibhav Chauhan]

Well this is not a very accurate one, as wheels aren't responsible for rpm, and only affect acceleration slightly.
& i don't understand why people are not trying to understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying i WANT WP to be quad cored, i am not saying a quad core WP will improve performance drastically, all I'm saying is it simple would not hurt to have a quad core phone!
We here understand that WP doesn't need quad or octa cores, but some people outside this community don't, in fact, most don't!
Their quad androids run faster than dual core androids so they assume its true for every phone, and having a quad core WP will make millions of those realise that WP really doesn't need a quad, its as fast on dual.
I still advocate every WP manufacturer to have a quad core flagship, that's all i want to say on this topic. Cheers.

 

[hopmedic]

Well this is not a very accurate one, as wheels aren't responsible for rpm, and only affect acceleration slightly.
& i don't understand why people are not trying to understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying i WANT WP to be quad cored, i am not saying a quad core WP will improve performance drastically, all I'm saying is it simple would not hurt to have a quad core phone!
We here understand that WP doesn't need quad or octa cores, but some people outside this community don't, in fact, most don't!
Their quad androids run faster than dual core androids so they assume its true for every phone, and having a quad core WP will make millions of those realise that WP really doesn't need a quad, its as fast on dual.
I still advocate every WP manufacturer to have a quad core flagship, that's all i want to say on this topic. Cheers.

Actually it is accurate, because the wheels don't represent the torque or accelleration at all. They represent the amount of weight being moved.

As for the specs, most users who are not on sites like this one don't have a clue what processor their phone has. I'd say that even a lot here don't know what processor it has. The number of cores in a phone's process is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to selling the phone.

 

[ClixT]

Well this is not a very accurate one, as wheels aren't responsible for rpm, and only affect acceleration slightly.
& i don't understand why people are not trying to understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying i WANT WP to be quad cored, i am not saying a quad core WP will improve performance drastically, all I'm saying is it simple would not hurt to have a quad core phone!
We here understand that WP doesn't need quad or octa cores, but some people outside this community don't, in fact, most don't!
Their quad androids run faster than dual core androids so they assume its true for every phone, and having a quad core WP will make millions of those realise that WP really doesn't need a quad, its as fast on dual.
I still advocate every WP manufacturer to have a quad core flagship, that's all i want to say on this topic. Cheers.

LOL i could be more specific about like compression ratio, engine bore, fuel they use, power to weight ratio (what hopmedic was pointing out), and a bunch more. But at least you guys get the idea.

 

[martinmc78]

So what your saying is a dual core phone running android JB 4.2.2 would be like

 

[anonymous934875938475938475]

To the people saying that the new Smart Cam app is only taking 5MP shots due to a lack of processing power you are wrong, see how fast the phone takes a 8MP pic now? The work can be delegated to the second core, it's not an issue, the reason for 5MP is because Smart Cam is taking multiple shots and 8MP pics have a significantly bigger file size and the trade in quality between 5MP and 8MP is negligable due to 5MP exceding the resolution of most screens you would view it on anyway so rather than fill up your memory with all these 8MP shots every time you take a pic, they do it as 5MP......that is why, it has nothing to do with a lack of processing power!

 

[anonymous934875938475938475]

i don't understand why people are not trying to understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying i WANT WP to be quad cored, i am not saying a quad core WP will improve performance drastically, all I'm saying is it simple would not hurt to have a quad core phone!

And what we are saying is it likely will hurt to have a quad core phone.......look at the battery life with a dual core......it sux.......even with "not so live tiles" and background agents that run every 30 minutes.....the battery life still sux.....other platforms have real time background agents however WP is such a battery killer that it cant!

So yes it can hurt to have unecessary cores very much, to the point where it will drive consumers away!

 

[hopmedic]

:sweaty:

So what your saying is a dual core phone running android JB 4.2.2 would be like

View attachment 35337

EXACTLY! :sweaty:

I sure don't want to be the guy administering the extended warranty on that bike.... :unhappysweat:

 

[a5cent]

I don't understand why people are not trying to understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying i WANT WP to be quad cored, i am not saying a quad core WP will improve performance drastically, all I'm saying is it simple would not hurt to have a quad core phone!

I really have been trying to understand what you've been saying. The problem is that a few of your previous statements contradict what you're saying now. That doesn't make it easy.

Anyway, it seems there is still an issue which you do not understand, which is that getting a quad core WP8 device can hurt! We don't even need to point to battery life to show it!

Just recently, Qualcomm announced the MSM8926. In their press release Qualcomm mentioned it to be Android and WP8 compatible. The tech press jumped on the statement, interpreting that to mean it was better suited to WP8 than some of Qualcomm's other SoC offerings (complete BS BTW, but that's another topic). As was to be expected, we now have WP8 fans calling for a WP8 device with this SoC, based solely on the fact that it sports a quad-core CPU, despite each core being only an unmodified ARM A7 design. So, if this SoC ends up in a real WP8 device, it will run every single app and every game slower than our six month old dual-core Lumia 920s. That would hurt!

Using this SoC in a WP8 device might be a marketing victory (yay, four cores!), but in terms of real performance it represents a surrender to the buying power of the uninformed enthusiast crowd. Not good!

 

[anonymous934875938475938475]

Using this SoC in a WP8 device might be a marketing victory (yay, four cores!), but in terms of real performance it represents a surrender to the buying power of the uninformed enthusiast crowd. Not good!

100%

 

[Andre o Botelho]

Wow, lets keep fighting for nothing! this thread is beeing some useless one.
There's some points here:
1 - Quad cores is not evil when you can use a low power state (or low power core) to save battery -- Galaxy SIII has it and works, just notice low performance when browsing on Chrome or playing games.
2 - I don't want a Quad Core! - just buy a two core option and please do not mess with this thread.
3 - A Quad core does not means better performance if you have low performance cores: dual core Krait or Cortex A15 can't be compared with Quad core Cortex A7 or A5(the weaker of all).
4 - WP8 can run on a Single Core CPU! Good for it, but I want to have the option to get a HUGE POWERFULL MONSTER SmartPhone just to show to my friends that I have it.
So: If you see a Quad A7 and want, dont buy It, wait for Snapdragon 600, and if you do not want a Quad core, buy the A7 one, if will fit your needs, is even better than current S4 for power saving.
PS: Really someone here is hearing what Elop says? Sometime ago he came to Nokia and Said: (the problem)You have made a horrible smartphone(N97) too weak CPU, lack or 3D hardware! (the solution) Lets change the OS!:shocked:

 

[Bob Shiska]

Dual cores can be faster than quads because they're all thermally limited. If you can push a dual core to 1.7GHz, you're likely only going to fit a 1.4GHz-ish quad in there. Or a 1.9GHz single core. (Note that power consumption vs. frequency is highly nonlinear.) It changes when you go to cutting edge Qualcomm designs, though. They gate all their circuits individually, so (I believe) they can shut down cores they aren't using. At the very least, they can keep cores 2-4 at idle (very low power usage) while core 1 is going all-out. Heat dissipation from a single core may limit "turbo"-type clocks, but otherwise you get the best of both worlds.

Would WP8 benefit from quads? Of course. It opens up 1080p, hdmi-out options, more advanced software, video and image processing, etc. How much value is debatable, but to say adding compute resources (in the manner of a Snapdragon 600/800, not so much with pure ARM A7 with a single voltage plane for all cores) wouldn't benefit performance is assinine. Even a simple example of a game, navigation, and music going at once, you might have 4 threads in flight. Yeah, nav and music aren't going to tax the performance of a single core that much, but at least running a quad you know they aren't going to do anything to a game designed for dual core.

To the original question? My understanding is that it isn't that it necessarily supports only duals or does support quads so much as only supports Qualcomm Kraits at this point in time. Built on NT, it's flexible for # of cores, but needs drivers and possibly other support for specific chipsets. Probably easier to get it to run a Snapdragon 600 than an Exynos 4 Dual.

 

[a5cent]

Would WP8 benefit from quads? Of course. It opens up 1080p, hdmi-out options, more advanced software, video and image processing, etc.

What? HDMI-out or 1080p is entirely unrelated to the number of general purpose CPU cores. The former doesn't require anything special, while the later requires only a capable enough GPU. Either could easily be achieved using any lowest-end single-core CPU. Furthermore, on WP almost all video and image processing is handled either by the DSP or the media processors, so that too is almost entirely unrelated to the number of CPU cores. All of those examples are irrelevant in terms of demonstrating the benefits of multi-core CPU's.

To the original question? My understanding is that it isn't that it necessarily supports only duals or does support quads so much as only supports Qualcomm Kraits at this point in time. Built on NT, it's flexible for # of cores, but needs drivers and possibly other support for specific chipsets. Probably easier to get it to run a Snapdragon 600 than an Exynos 4 Dual.

Yes. The above is the only statement of those three I would agree with.

 

[Bob Shiska]

What? HDMI-out or 1080p is entirely unrelated to the number of general purpose CPU cores. The former doesn't require anything special, while the later requires only a capable enough GPU. Either could easily be achieved using any lowest-end single-core CPU. Furthermore, on WP almost all video and image processing is handled either by the DSP or the media processors, so that too is almost entirely unrelated to the number of CPU cores. All of those examples are irrelevant in terms of demonstrating the benefits of multi-core CPU's.

You're forgetting the C in CPU. While the GPU does all the rendering, it needs the CPU to feed it. Higher resolution, more feeding to do, and the more stuff you can include in graphics that need CPU support. HDMI-out is only relevent in relation to the 1080p capability you'd need to go along with it.

AnandTech | AMD Comments on GPU Stuttering, Offers Driver Roadmap & Perspective on Benchmarking

Video and image capture? Dedicated signal processors, with help from CPU. Video decode? GPU. Video encode (after editing) and image editing? That's CPU. If you don't think Cinemagraph would work faster (if written properly) on a quad core, you're sorely mistaken.

Not saying the CPU is end-all be-all of performance. But you can add as big of a GPU as you want, at some point the CPU becomes the bottleneck. You wouldn't pair a 7990 with an Atom, would you?

 

[Andre o Botelho]

1080p video playback and output to hdmi can be done with a single core and a DSP, but the question here is:

Video and image capture? Dedicated signal processors, with help from CPU. Video decode? GPU. Video encode (after editing) and image editing? That's CPU. If you don't think Cinemagraph would work faster (if written properly) on a quad core, you're sorely mistaken.

Not saying the CPU is end-all be-all of performance. But you can add as big of a GPU as you want, at some point the CPU becomes the bottleneck. You wouldn't pair a 7990 with an Atom, would you?

I still can't understand why people keep saying: I don't want options! Let it the way it is! I don't need it better! Maybe they believe WP8 is sooooo wonderful that can't be better or something...

 

[a5cent]

You're forgetting the C in CPU. While the GPU does all the rendering, it needs the CPU to feed it. Higher resolution, more feeding to do, and the more stuff you can include in graphics that need CPU support.

Wrong. I'm not a game developer, but I have written a few hardware accelerated 3D applications. The only situation where your example is of any importance is in real-time 3D graphics, and in those cases what is being fed to the GPU is primarily vector data which is entirely resolution independent. You can feed the GPU the exact same data whether it is being rendered to a 360 x 640 display or a 2560 x 1440 display... it makes no difference. In fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the CPU isn't even aware of the display's resolution. That is how irrelevant the display resolution is to the CPU.

Where display resolution does come into play is in the final stages of the rendering pipeline. This involves things like rasterization, pixel shaders and anti aliasing, but this is all the domain of the GPU. The CPU isn't involved in any of those activities.

Video encode (after editing) and image editing? That's CPU. If you don't think Cinemagraph would work faster (if written properly) on a quad core, you're sorely mistaken.

First, note that I was referencing only those statements I had quoted. It's a fact that most smartphone video processing is not done on the CPU. End of story. Obviously, we'll always be able to find a specific app with a specific feature where the CPU plays a more prominent role. However, that isn't a point worth making. My point was that general purpose CPU cores aren't involved in nearly as many operations as most people assume they are, particularly on smartphones.

Second, your certainty in regard to where video encode and image editing occurs suggests that you don't work in the software industry. Blanket statements of that sort are almost always wrong. Even on desktops/laptops more and more of those functions are being shifted away from the general purpose computing cores to more specialized units:

1. Photoshop has been shifting ever more image editing computations to the GPU.
2. QuickSync technology shows that even Intel believes video encoding is more appropriately done on dedicated hardware than on the CPU.

Considering that Smartphones aren't just computationally constrained but also power constrained, that approach makes even more sense than on desktop/laptops. In fact, that is exactly what is being done. Here is a blog post from a Qualcomm employee stating precisely that, which I'll quote:

"The technology stage is set for video acceleration in hardware on the phone. It consists of dedicated hardware in the chipset that does the compute-intensive work of encoding and decoding"

That employee also mentions that the only task the CPU is left with, is shovelling the raw video data to and from the dedicated encode/decode hardware, which is negligible.

The only reason to do any of the things you mentioned on the CPU (particularly since all modern smartphones include dedicated hardware) is portability. If we were developing software to run on many different hardware platforms, but don't want to develop hardware specific software (because developing all those variations of the same thing costs money), then the ARM CPU is the only thing that is guaranteed to exist everywhere.

In regard to Cinemagraph, you may be right, but you may also be the one that is sorely mistaken. All I know is that Scalado is the company that delivers the technology which Nokia uses to build Cinemagraph, and that some of Scalado's features are hardware accelerated (don't use the general purpose CPU) and others aren't. I don't know what applies to Cinemagraph. Do you?

Either way, the situation is a lot more complicated and nuanced than you are making it out to be.

But you can add as big of a GPU as you want, at some point the CPU becomes the bottleneck. You wouldn't pair a 7990 with an Atom, would you?

At some point the GPU will crank out frames fast enough that we'll hit the smartphone screen refresh limit of 60Hz. Whether the software becomes CPU bound before we hit that limit depends entirely on the software we're running. Maybe the CPU will become the bottleneck, maybe it won't.

Not saying the CPU is end-all be-all of performance.

This was my original point. I just wanted to note that the CPU isn't involved in as many things as most people assume. It's involved in even fewer things than you assumed.

I still can't understand why people keep saying: I don't want options! Let it the way it is! I don't need it better!

I can speak only for myself, but as far as I can tell, nobody is saying any such thing... or at least I'm not!

IMHO we're saying we don't want worse options than we already have. We'll gladly take any better options, but just determining that the number 4 > 2 isn't anywhere close to determining what makes a more powerful CPU.