The Windows 10 April 2018 update has arrived! Get the new Dell XPS 15, starting at $999.99
10-26-2012 08:39 AM
83 1234
tools
  1. power5's Avatar
    I haven't heard that yet. It's certainly possible, but I would be surprised because tablets that include modems (which dual-core S4 Pro's do) are usually of the high-end variety, and those I would expect to come with a high resolution display that really shouldn't be driven by an Adreno 225.

    I'm expecting all Windows RT tablets using Qualcomm silicon to be built around the APQ8064, but that is just a guess.
    S4 pro use 320 according to your link. Qual really needs to get some USB3.0 support on their silicon. Not so much for data but for power. Will make charging a good bit faster.
    10-03-2012 10:13 AM
  2. 1jaxstate1's Avatar
    I'm all for specs, but why in the name of anything sane, would you need a quad core processor in a cell phone. Are we doing full blown video editing, CAD, and full photoshop now?

    That angry bird game is gonna look fantastic!!!! /s
    cckgz4 likes this.
    10-03-2012 10:15 AM
  3. X0LARIUM's Avatar
    Hate to be the devil's advocate...but I'm smelling a plan.

    Phase 1: WP7 - Testing waters

    Phase 2: WP8 - first step towards providing "proper" specs

    Phase 3: WP9 - Real/Actual smartphone OS that tramples the competition...everything we expect in a high-end WP smartphone we get here:
    heXa-core processor
    2GB RAM
    Holographic Chat
    Controlling interplanetary bodies and ability to see the future.
    All of it.

    And, putting my life at stake from Snipers prowling this forum, I dare to say, a Surface Phone is what I'm point at...


    Sent from my RaZr HD.
    a5cent likes this.
    10-03-2012 10:47 AM
  4. power5's Avatar
    I'm all for specs, but why in the name of anything sane, would you need a quad core processor in a cell phone. Are we doing full blown video editing, CAD, and full photoshop now?

    That angry bird game is gonna look fantastic!!!! /s
    To be honest, a current ARM quad is still no where even close in this universe to being able to do full blown 1080p video editing and compiling. CAD and photoshop also don't have a chance. These programs all stress top of the line desktop systems and a quad ARM at 1.5ghz is about equal to the absolute lowest rung on the x86 ladder.

    This is why i think we do need as many cores as we can cram into the TDP and package size. To get closer and closer to desktop capabilities. Until then we will still just have media and social consumption devices in our pockets.
    10-03-2012 12:24 PM
  5. a5cent's Avatar
    Sorry guys, apparently post #47 was easily misunderstood. We too really need to stop using the term "S4 Pro" which is just a category... ;)
    <snipped>
    I'm expecting all Windows RT tablets using Qualcomm silicon to be built around the APQ8064, but that is just a guess.
    Both the Samsung Ativ Tab and a Dell tablet are using Snapdragon S4. Though you might be right and it is not a Pro. Can't find any details
    But the APQ8064 is a S4 Pro? I'll say it differently. I'm expecting all high-end Windows RT tablets, that are built around Qualcomm silicon and include radios, to include the same components as the LG Optimus G, i.e. an APQ8064 (S4 Pro with Adreno 320) and the MDM9615 (LTE baseband modem).
    S4 pro use 320 according to your link. Qual really needs to get some USB3.0 support on their silicon. Not so much for data but for power. Will make charging a good bit faster.
    Absolutely agree with the USB statement! Yes, all S4 Pros include the Adreno 320. Sorry for any confusion I likely caused.
    Last edited by a5cent; 10-03-2012 at 01:07 PM.
    10-03-2012 12:31 PM
  6. a5cent's Avatar
    This is why i think we do need as many cores as we can cram into the TDP and package size.
    Sorry for belaboring the point power5, but I'm going to bug you one last time...

    You want "as many cores as we can cram into the TDP and package size". How many do you want? 512? That poses no problem! At all! The industry could deliver that to you almost by tomorrow. Intel developed experimental 48 core and 1024 core CPU's years ago. Unfortunately, nobody outside a research lab has any use for them, and without some revolution in software development technology that won't change.

    After rethinking that statement I'm sure you will agree that "getting as many cores as we can cram into a smartphone's TDP and package size" would just blow... worst CPU ever.

    What we do want is as much computational performance as we can possibly get. The trick to getting that, is finding the best balance between core count and individual core performance, which is most closely suited to running the software we use. That is the whole message I'm trying to get across here.
    10-03-2012 01:07 PM
  7. a5cent's Avatar
    I just don't see why ARMs would not be able to laser cut bad areas or just deactivate them in the chip bios.
    First of all, these SoC dies are really really small. A few defects on the wafer here and there, requiring you to throw away a few SoCs, isn't going to ruin you... the defective dies (very cheap) are just priced into the functional SoCs that are eventually sold.

    Throwing out an entire x86 CPU, that is only partially defective, amounts to throwing out a comparatively much larger part of the wafer and a much larger chunk of potential profits ($100 and up)... hence the laser.
    10-03-2012 01:24 PM
  8. AngryNil's Avatar
    Not sure why a synthetic benchmark is so much better than a real life benchmark. I hope you know that companies like Nvidia have released drivers SPECIFICALLY for doing better in synthetic benchmarks. So, would that be a better measure?
    You're comparing boot times of two completely different operating systems. You do not know what is being computed in each boot, you do not know which components are the bottleneck and you have literally no idea what is happening. How do you know that the OS is fully loaded by the time a device displays the lock screen? Why does it matter if one phone loads the OS 10 seconds slower, when it also runs everything once loaded twice as fast?

    Look at that super powerful gaming machine! Oh wait, it boots slower than this ultrabook because the ultrabook has a SSD. The ultrabook must be better! In fact, my Omnia 7 boots faster than my friend's GS II! Hot damn, that inefficient QSD8250 in my phone must be an absolute powerhouse!

    nVidia's biased benchmarks are still a million times more useful than your measure. And a combination of benchmarks is definitely superior in measuring the potential of the hardware. Real world performance? My device sits at app splash screens for long, long seconds. The GS II doesn't.
    1jaxstate1 likes this.
    10-04-2012 01:00 AM
  9. maverick786us's Avatar
    In my boredom I re-listened to the WP8 Keynote from June 2012

    One of things Joe B talked about in the 8 platform announcements was the support for multi-core processors

    As I listened again, I noticed that he said WP8 kernel could (shared kernel with desktop and servers) run on 64 core machines but that didn't mean it was ready.

    As a matter of fact, around the 12:00min mark he says



    * single core WP8 software will not be ready in 2012
    * quad-core+ WP8 software will not be not ready in 2012


    I think this rules out any quad-core HTC devices being released in 2012 as the current version of WP8 has only been focused on dual-core devices.

    I do hope that MS adds support for quad-core devices ( for the spec crowd and subsequent bragging rights ) early 2013 as Qualcomm is now ready to release their quad-core processors
    Snapdragon Processors | All-in-One Mobile Processor | Qualcomm

    The LG Optimus G uses this processor.

    Again, I expect WP8 to run smoothly on a dual core devices, but I don't want WP8 to limit the OEM from releasing their latest and greatest devices ( like 2010,2011) because of the limitation of the OS
    Quad core will always be good. But at this point of time it is OVERKILL for mobile devices. We already have dual core processors for multi-tasking and a discreate GPU with 1GB RAM.
    10-04-2012 02:18 AM
  10. Gaichuke's Avatar
    Quad core will always be good.
    No it won't. Did you even read this thread?
    10-04-2012 03:30 AM
  11. maverick786us's Avatar
    No it won't. Did you even read this thread?
    I have read this article. The only drawback that Quad Core will hold is battery drain. But if a quad core processer with same clock speed or same perfomance per clock speed will run smoother.

    It will be good for background multi tasking (If I am not wrong WP8 uses better multi-tasking). Still it will be a overkill because mobile apps are not that much power hungry as desktop apps and untill WP applications are not developed to use all the 4 cores, it will be a waste
    10-04-2012 05:21 AM
  12. 1jaxstate1's Avatar
    What programs would take advantage of a quad-core processor on a phone. I have a single core processor, and it runs just fine. Maybe in the future, but in the near future, I don't see the purpose.
    10-04-2012 08:09 AM
  13. PG2G's Avatar
    I'd imagine that web browsing and image processing are two areas where quad core would help.
    10-04-2012 08:24 AM
  14. maverick786us's Avatar
    Yup camera needs processing power. There are occasions while listening to music, you browse something at the same time, send some message using WhatsApp, attend Skype calls. For such multi-tasking multi-core is always benifical.

    Although for mobile Quad core is still an overkill. But we all are TECHNICAL ENTHUSASTIC (atleast all the members of this forms). We are targeting niche market. For us multi cores with extensive multi-tasking is a need
    10-04-2012 12:29 PM
  15. power5's Avatar
    Again from my understanding of ARM architecture, each core is basically single threaded. Can only do 1 thing at a time. So if you are listening to music and surfing at the same time, one instruction cycle goes for music, the next to surfing, then back to music then possibly back to surfing if music does not need it again. So the more cores the better. Better explanation is to play music you need more lines of code for RISC. For CISC you just use the instruction set "Play Music" and for RISC you dont have that instruction set, so you need Open, sort, find, play instruction sets.

    x86 cpus can do many things at once. This is CISC.

    RISC vs. CISC
    Last edited by power5; 10-04-2012 at 01:27 PM.
    10-04-2012 01:00 PM
  16. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Same was said when AMD introduced DC and intel was still using P4 SC at higher clock. Was quite apparent which direction was better as intel does not have an 8ghz SC P8 now, they have Multi core chips.

    Why do you have more than 640k memory anyway?
    You need more than 640k of memory because applications were written that could actually put it to use.

    That is a poor analogy.

    There are hardly any applications that demonstrate a dramatic improvement with dual-core processors on phone OS's at this point, much less quad core.

    Quad core is inevitable, but people make way too much of a big deal about it. I'd expect it from Android idiots but you guys should be smarter than this. I thought most people chose Windows Phone because they care more about how the phone actually works then counting cores and having a meaningless wiener measuring contest over clock speed and screen dimensions.

    Android needs all the help it can get because its a ridiculous cluster of heaped on poorly implemented "features" that no one ever asked for and few people use.

    Guaranteed any dual-core WP8 will run smoother and perform equally to the magical quad core Android pigs with 6" screens. Believe that. And Windows Phone will have quad core soon enough.
    10-04-2012 05:12 PM
  17. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Again from my understanding of ARM architecture, each core is basically single threaded. Can only do 1 thing at a time. So if you are listening to music and surfing at the same time, one instruction cycle goes for music, the next to surfing, then back to music then possibly back to surfing if music does not need it again. So the more cores the better. Better explanation is to play music you need more lines of code for RISC. For CISC you just use the instruction set "Play Music" and for RISC you dont have that instruction set, so you need Open, sort, find, play instruction sets.

    x86 cpus can do many things at once. This is CISC.

    RISC vs. CISC
    Forgive me if I misunderstood, but that kind of makes it sound like CISC is superior to RISC and I don't think that's necessarily the case. Check out what processors supercomputers use, they are all RISC processors for the most part like the IBM Power architecture.

    I believe x86 is CISC based mostly because of convention and software compatibility, backwards compatibility etc. I'm far from an expert but I believe RISC is superior in many ways.
    10-04-2012 05:20 PM
  18. brmiller1976's Avatar
    I have a dual-core Galaxy S III. Web browsing on it is so much faster than a single-core WP with IE9.

    I have no doubt that developers will find plenty of use for extra cores and horsepower. Traditionally, platforms that have sought to restrict hardware innovation and speed improvements haven't been winners. The whole point of WP8's big kernel transplant was to enable much better hardware as it becomes available, so it would be tragic if quad-core, octo-core, faster storage, 3d screens, or whatever else is available doesn't make its way to WP with ease...
    10-04-2012 05:39 PM
  19. brmiller1976's Avatar
    I believe x86 is CISC based mostly because of convention and software compatibility, backwards compatibility etc. I'm far from an expert but I believe RISC is superior in many ways.
    Wow, haven't seen this argument for years!

    Apple, Motorola and IBM made the same argument with PowerPC, and after a little bit of initial performance lead, Intel and AMD utterly demolished PowerPC in performance, heat, wattage and battery life with their "inferior" CISC infrastructure, to the point where Apple bailed on PPC for Intel.

    They over-promised with RISC, big-time. I remember seeing a Motorola presentation claiming that a PPC 601, when released, would emulate a Pentium faster than any Pentium could actually run. Total propaganda, but the Mac press (and general tech press) fell all over it.
    10-04-2012 05:41 PM
  20. power5's Avatar
    You need more than 640k of memory because applications were written that could actually put it to use.

    That is a poor analogy.
    Not true. Some in the early days of tech always stated that there would never be a need for the upcoming parts that were going to change the game. Those people have been wrong every single time. Dont need more than 640k memory, dont need more than 1ghz processors, dont need more than a p4EE at 3.73ghz, dont need more than 2 cores, dont need more than 4 cores....it just keeps going over and over.

    Forgive me if I misunderstood, but that kind of makes it sound like CISC is superior to RISC and I don't think that's necessarily the case. Check out what processors supercomputers use, they are all RISC processors for the most part like the IBM Power architecture.

    I believe x86 is CISC based mostly because of convention and software compatibility, backwards compatibility etc. I'm far from an expert but I believe RISC is superior in many ways.
    Supercomputers are running very specific software programs. You do not have a super computer running windows where it needs to surf the web, play crysis, send an email, render a autocad file, animate a strata scene, or do any of the photoshop filters to a 500mb file. That is why RISC works. The code is written once and probably never gets changed. Whereas desktop software gets updates for new drivers, new features, new things that you do not want to have to re-write extra lines of code because there is not as many instruction sets to use.
    10-04-2012 06:51 PM
  21. PG2G's Avatar
    The Intel line has been RISC-like since the Pentium Pro came out...

    RISC processors have gained many of the advantages of CISC, CISC processors have gained many of the advantages of RISC. It isn't even worth discussing anymore.
    10-04-2012 09:44 PM
  22. a5cent's Avatar
    I'd imagine that web browsing and image processing are two areas where quad core would help.
    I agree with this. Although I'm unsure how much of a difference it will make. I'm guessing that browsing performance on WP8 will be limited not by CPU speed but by network bandwidth. Wait and see.

    Image processing is difficult to judge. It really depends on exactly what the app is doing. A lot of image processing done in the camera apps will be done using the DSP's and thus circumvent the general processing cores entirely. Anything involving compression algorithms will be done via the media processors, etc.

    Also agree that the RISC and CISC discussion is pointless... the days were that mattered are long gone. x86 CPU's are effectively both at once.
    Last edited by a5cent; 10-04-2012 at 11:47 PM.
    10-04-2012 11:34 PM
  23. a5cent's Avatar
    Dont need more than a p4EE at 3.73ghz, dont need more than 2 cores, dont need more than 4 cores....it just keeps going over and over.
    Then I would ask you again why we aren't all using 48 core CPU's today? As I indicated in an earlier post, such CPU's have been around for quite some time. If more cores is always better, then where are they? It's completely unlike the MHz race were Intel hit a wall and just couldn't economically clock any higher. Those 48 core CPU's physically exist and have for years.
    10-04-2012 11:44 PM
  24. maverick786us's Avatar
    Again from my understanding of ARM architecture, each core is basically single threaded. Can only do 1 thing at a time. So if you are listening to music and surfing at the same time, one instruction cycle goes for music, the next to surfing, then back to music then possibly back to surfing if music does not need it again. So the more cores the better. Better explanation is to play music you need more lines of code for RISC. For CISC you just use the instruction set "Play Music" and for RISC you dont have that instruction set, so you need Open, sort, find, play instruction sets.

    x86 cpus can do many things at once. This is CISC.

    RISC vs. CISC
    So why these Nokia Windows phone switch on to CPUs having CISC architecture?
    10-04-2012 11:46 PM
  25. a5cent's Avatar
    Still it will be a overkill because mobile apps are not that much power hungry as desktop apps and untill WP applications are not developed to use all the 4 cores, it will be a waste
    Once again I would like to dispute this. There is no such thing as too much performance. Give us the most powerful hardware we can possibly get, and the apps that make use of that processing power will follow. It always works in that order, never the other way around.
    10-04-2012 11:57 PM
83 1234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD