No Quad-Core WP8 This Fall

andrelamont

New member
Jul 27, 2012
265
0
0
Visit site
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

The work we have been doing on WP8 has been focused on dual-core for this fall and we are doing all the optimization on dual core first for WP8 devices...

* 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
 

threed61

New member
Jul 28, 2011
367
0
0
Visit site
If the WP8 phones work fast and smooth on a dual core, and the reviews and word of mouth spread the news, no one will care how many cores other phones have.
 

andrelamont

New member
Jul 27, 2012
265
0
0
Visit site
If the WP8 phones work fast and smooth on a dual core, and the reviews and word of mouth spread the news, no one will care how many cores other phones have.

I think the number of people who care about 345 cores on a phone will be small...

I created this post because of the rumors of some HTC devices having 4 cores, the OS not currently being ready to support 4 cores makes me question if their will be a HTC One X(+) equivalent.


source
Finally, the big guns: "Zenith" is expected to have a 4.7-inch 720p Super LCD 2 with the same 8-megapixel sensor as the Accord, 42Mbps HSPA+, and an unnamed quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon
 

Mitlov

New member
Mar 16, 2012
390
0
0
Visit site
There are problems with quad-core processors and the US version of LTE. That's why both the HTC One X and Samsung Galaxy S3 are quad-core for their international versions but dual-core for their US models.

Microsoft is very US-oriented, so if it doesn't work for the US market, they may not be doing it at all.
 

Major

New member
Nov 1, 2011
447
0
0
Visit site
There are problems with quad-core processors and the US version of LTE. That's why both the HTC One X and Samsung Galaxy S3 are quad-core for their international versions but dual-core for their US models.

Microsoft is very US-oriented, so if it doesn't work for the US market, they may not be doing it at all.

From what I understand, no current quad core processors have onboard LTE, so the LTE modem would have to be added separately. These separate LTE modems (such as the ones used in first generation LTE Android phones) use more battery power. Thus, the dual core/LTE chipsets are a power saving measure. At least that's what I've heard.
 

lordofthereef

New member
Sep 17, 2012
656
0
0
Visit site
From what little we have seen from WP8 running on a dual core chip, it seems to scream. To be honest, 7.5 screams on a single core SoC as well, so I am not too worried about a lack of quad core, at least in terms of phones.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
C'mon guys. How many times do we need to go over this:

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

Actually, you really really don't want OEM's releasing WP devices with whatever they deem to be the latest and greatest hardware at any given time. A standardized hardware/software platform is essential to:
- keeping the WP8 OS lean and mean
- preserving Microsoft's ability to deliver OS updates directly to our devices without OEM involvement (a long standing goal they have so far failed to achieve but are trying to complete the legal foundation for)
- giving developers the ability to optimize their apps for a specific hardware platform

Any one of those things is more important than the meaningless core count number on the spec sheet, which brings me to my recommendation that you read this thread on that subject (a long read). In that thread I attempt to explain why, on mobile devices, high-end dual-core CPU's will almost always run your apps faster than high-end quad-core CPU's. All the important players get this:

WP8 devices = dual-core
iPhone 5 = dual-core
Upcoming Samsung Galaxy S4 = all dual-core (everywhere in the world)

The question is will consumers ever catch on?

There are problems with quad-core processors and the US version of LTE. That's why both the HTC One X and Samsung Galaxy S3 are quad-core for their international versions but dual-core for their US models.

There is absolutely no connection between the number of CPU cores and the device's radios (LTE or whatever else). There is no such problem!

Qualcomm is currently the only company offering a SoC with an integrated LTE receiver (Snapdragon). Building a competitive LTE device with any of the competing non-integrated offerings is simply not a viable option (due to battery drain). However, that SoC from Qualcomm is only available in a dual-core variant. That is the only real reason U.S. LTE devices aren't shipping with quad-core CPU's.
 

CSJr1

New member
Aug 15, 2012
264
0
0
Visit site
C'mon guys. How many times do we need to go over this:



Actually, you really really don't want OEM's releasing WP devices with whatever they deem to be the latest and greatest hardware at any given time. A standardized hardware/software platform is essential to:
- keeping the WP8 OS lean and mean
- preserving Microsoft's ability to deliver OS updates directly to our devices without OEM involvement (a long standing goal they have so far failed to achieve but are trying to complete the legal foundation for)
- giving developers the ability to optimize their apps for a specific hardware platform

Any one of those things is more important than the meaningless core count number on the spec sheet, which brings me to my recommendation that you read this thread on that subject (a long read). In that thread I attempt to explain why, on mobile devices, high-end dual-core CPU's will almost always run your apps faster than high-end quad-core CPU's. All the important players get this:

WP8 devices = dual-core
iPhone 5 = dual-core
Upcoming Samsung Galaxy S4 = all dual-core (everywhere in the world)

The question is will consumers ever catch on?



There is absolutely no connection between the number of CPU cores and the device's radios (LTE or whatever else). There is no such problem!

Qualcomm is currently the only company offering a SoC with an integrated LTE receiver (Snapdragon). Building a competitive LTE device with any of the competing non-integrated offerings is simply not a viable option (due to battery drain). However, that SoC from Qualcomm is only available in a dual-core variant. That is the only real reason U.S. LTE devices aren't shipping with quad-core CPU's.
I appreciate your insight along with your always staunch opposition to Quad-Core phones.
In 2-3 years when Quad-Core Mobile Processors (Smartphones) are widely prevalent, I expect you to lead the charge against Hexacore devices of the same type. Because surely we can't have our mobile computing devices breaking boundaries, getting smaller, or becomming more energy efficient.

1912 Forever!! That is all.
 

X0LARIUM

New member
Aug 11, 2012
1,799
0
0
Visit site
Though I get what the OP is saying, I also might like to add, quad-core isn't the best thing happened to phones, yet.

Buried here somewhere, I took have a thread of dual core optimization. The damn apps and everything that makes use of it needs to be OPTIMIZED to make use of it..

If ultimately, your apps are gonna use just ONE core, you can happily rent your other cores to homeless teenagers and make some money out of it.. :p

Sent from my RaZr HD.
 

Winterfang

New member
Apr 20, 2011
3,541
6
0
Visit site
Quad-core LTE devices are coming in this year. I believe the Note 2 will be using that technology, is supposed to run a lot cooler and faster.
 

VagrantWade

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,400
1
0
Visit site
What exactly do we need four cores on a cell phone for exactly?

As someone who is pretty engrained in the PC hardware world both personally and professionally, this makes no sense to me. I want a fast core clock on a dual core. A quad core isn't going to do much else on a device with limited multitasking. And 99% of the applications out there are going to utilize two cores.
 

power5

New member
Oct 10, 2011
1,225
1
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?
 

VagrantWade

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,400
1
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?


Huge difference. That was utilizing the ability to split application load into multiple cores, or not. Here we are talking about splitting it between 2 and 4. Which is pretty much useless with current smartphones with limited multitasking. It makes more sense for devices like tablets.
 

PG2G

New member
Dec 20, 2010
453
0
0
Visit site
I don't think anyone is suggested than a quad core A15 (or Krait) would be a bad thing. The annoying part is the people that assume that 4 is better than 2 and that means a quad core A9 is better than a dual core A15 (or Krait).

I would love to see a quad core WP8 phone, but being jealous of the CPU performance of the Exynos or Tegra 3 is silly.
 

stephen_az

Banned
Aug 2, 2012
1,267
0
0
Visit site
I view the fascination with quad core to be based mostly on the fact that Android is so poorly designed and optimized. A dual core device running a well designed OS can still run circles around quad core running a bad OS. The current situation in tablets is a good example. Even the fastest quad core Asus tablets have some degree of lag since they are essentially hamstrung by the OS. My BlackBerry playbook with a 1 ghz dual core processor is laughably smoother than my Transformer Prime running Android 4.1. I expect people will see a few quad core Android phones in the relatively near future, being touted for their amazing processing power. In real life, they will be just about as fast and smooth as a new iPhone or Windows Phone 8, and will also have the battery life that goes along with shoving a quad core in a phone....
 

mmacleodbrown

New member
Sep 7, 2012
266
0
0
Visit site
As far as I know, the latest S4 quad cpu does have an LTE modem on it, it just took them longer to work out the issues so it couldn't be done for this generation

a5cent is right and his thread is spot on, first of all look how well WP runs on a lumia 710, much better than a lot of mid range droid devices with better specs - that should make you think.

I have a intel i3930K 6 cores 12 threads and 95% of the software doesn't or can't utilise all six cores effectively, the amount of time I watch task manager and curse all 12 threads sitting there chugging away using 8% of each thread.
Sometimes the difference between that and my i5 cpu is negligible.

There is no point of a quad core cpu until software developers are ready to use it, they aren't on android yet, and they aren't on WP8 - Id swap quad core cpu for optimised dual core OS and better battery life anyday of the week
Like I said, look at the 710, it doesn't feel laggy at all - the proof is in the pudding
 

VagrantWade

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,400
1
0
Visit site
It reminds me of my co-worker who opted for a slower clock speed i7 over an ivy bridge i5 because the i7 has hyperthreading.

He has yet to use any application that utilizes hyperthreading.

A silly world we live in.
 

GoodThings2Life

New member
Dec 1, 2011
1,037
0
0
Visit site
Hasn't anybody else noticed that quad-core CPU's aren't even that common on desktops yet? Just because you see 4 processors (thanks, hyperthreading), we're still dominantly dual-core.

Why, then, do we obsess over quad-core phones? Why do we expect that a quad-core phone should somehow be cheaper than a quad-core desktop system? It's ludicrous.

I'm not against it, I'm a tech guy for crying out loud I WANT it, but I'm realistic too.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
Why do we expect that a quad-core phone should somehow be cheaper than a quad-core desktop system? It's ludicrous.

Actually, quad-core phone CPU's are/will be much cheaper than quad-core desktop systems! Why? Because price has nothing to do with the number of cores! Really! It doesn't! You are making a common but fundamental mistake, likely because it appears that the number of cores on desktop CPUs and their price is related (which isn't really correct either).

Here's the thing... price is only related to die-size. Nothing else. Die-size is a function of the number of transistors and manufacturing technology (node size):

All CPU designers are given a set of constraints they must consider when developing their CPU's, but the constraints server/desktop-CPU designers and mobile-CPU designers edge up against first, well, they differ:

server/desktop-CPU designers = hit die-size constraints first
mobile-CPU designers = hit power & thermal constraints first

The die-size constraint is basically a function of the highest acceptable manufacturing cost per SKU (bigger die-size = higher manufacturing costs). These "huge" CPU designs that target the largest possible die-size end up being that generations flagship CPUs. From there, server/desktop-CPU designers cut the number of cores and reduce cache sizes to get CPUs that use less transistors which result in smaller dies and lower manufacturing costs. From this approach we currently get server/desktop-CPU's ranging from $100 up to $1000 which integrate between 500M and 1.5B transistors and two, four or six cores (eight cores in special cases). That is why many relate less cores to cheaper prices, when it is actually about die-size.

However! Mobile-CPUs hit their power and thermal limitations long before getting anywhere close to the limits of what can be cost effectively manufactured. So, the number of power sucking transistors mobile-CPU designers can cram onto a die are far fewer, which means the die-size can be much smaller, resulting in much lower manufacturing costs. From this we get products ranging from $10 up to $30, which includes not just the CPU but the entire SoC (GPU and a whole host of specialized co-processors, sometimes even including circuitry related to radios).

So, the mobile-CPU designer gets limited to a a much smaller die-size (remember, transistor count, manufacturing technology and die-size are all proportionally related). Assuming revolutionary advances in battery technology aren't just around the corner (seems unlikely), that die-size isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future. We will get advances in manufacturing technology, giving us smaller transistors that suck less juice, but those advances will instantly be invested into CPU's with a proportionally larger number of transistors leading to more powerful CPU's on roughly the same die-size as before. Because the die-size will remain similar, so will SoC prices (for the foreseeable future).

Hitting different constraints first is why server/desktop-CPU and mobile-CPU design is fundamentally different.

And yes, that is also why high-end dual-core and quad-core smartphone SoC's will also be very similar in price... same number of transistors using the same manufacturing technology = same die-size = same price
 
Last edited:

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,918
Messages
2,242,892
Members
428,005
Latest member
rogertewarte