No Quad-Core WP8 This Fall

maverick786us

New member
Sep 17, 2012
956
0
0
Visit site
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
 

1jaxstate1

New member
Dec 6, 2010
3,249
9
0
Visit site
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.
 

maverick786us

New member
Sep 17, 2012
956
0
0
Visit site
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
 

power5

New member
Oct 10, 2011
1,225
1
0
Visit site
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:

socialcarpet

Banned
Apr 4, 2012
1,893
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

socialcarpet

Banned
Apr 4, 2012
1,893
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

brmiller1976

New member
Aug 5, 2011
2,092
0
0
Visit site
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...
 

brmiller1976

New member
Aug 5, 2011
2,092
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

power5

New member
Oct 10, 2011
1,225
1
0
Visit site
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.
 

PG2G

New member
Dec 20, 2010
453
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
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:

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

maverick786us

New member
Sep 17, 2012
956
0
0
Visit site
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?
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

maverick786us

New member
Sep 17, 2012
956
0
0
Visit site
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.

I know that :). By overkill I mean, we don't need so much of horse power (in the form of 4 cores) for mobile devices. Its not that we will play CRYSIS or host sharepoint websites in Lumia 920.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
I know that :). By overkill I mean, we don't need so much of horse power (in the form of 4 cores) for mobile devices. Its not that we will play CRYSIS or host sharepoint websites in Lumia 920.

But if we could, we would, wouldn't we? I would.

If I can come home, place my Lumia 8000 next to my 42" monitor to which it then automatically establishes a WiDi link and also connects to my bluetooth 9.0 keyboard and mouse, why not let me play Crysis on it? If that single device could fulfill all of my computing needs, why not let it? Why should that be overkill? I'd throw out my desktop PC in a heartbeat if it could do that.

Again, I'll ignore the 4 cores statement, because the number of cores isn't directly related to computing performance.
 

power5

New member
Oct 10, 2011
1,225
1
0
Visit site
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.

They are huge. Would not fit in a phone. Last one of those I saw was the size of a guys palm. That will not fit in a phone. Barely in a tablet. Also as you stated, it costs more money to design more core chips. More circuitry and all around engineering to get more cores into the same low power envelope. Need smaller fab process to help.
 

power5

New member
Oct 10, 2011
1,225
1
0
Visit site
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.

Yes intel uses a RISC core with CISC organizer or whatever you call it.
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.

GS3 gets 48mb/s in 4glte down speeds. Its not limited by bandwidth in the least. CPU and GPU will definitely be our limiter.

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.

I agree, hardware advances always spawns the software advances. Thought I wrote that, but must have only been thinking it when I posted last night. :)
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,916
Messages
2,242,890
Members
428,004
Latest member
hetb