I've been curious if there is any difference between the two; mobile processors that go in cell phones and netbooks, and the 'regular' processors that are made for laptops and desktop computers as far as the processing rating for each go.
Somewhere I remember someone saying that there is a difference between a 1GHz mobile processor and a 1GHz desktop processor. If anyone coulf verify this or give some input toward this topic,it would be greatly appreciated.
Seriously, that is too broad of a topic. There are a ton of differences.
Ok, let me clarify a little better. What is the computing power difference between a mobile processor that is rated at 1 GHz and a desktop processor rated at 1GHz. That is my question. I remember someone saying that they were rated differently or something of the sort.
You are still trying to compare apples to oranges. This is akin to comparing 2ghz Intel CPUs. There are several running at 2ghz, however there are a whole bunch of other architectural differences.
In an attempt to answer this question, I would say compare the mflops of each processor. People use linpack on the droids to measure this, I've seen as high as ~40 in linpack on the EVO with custom kernels, stock are are ~6.
Here is a good site with linpack scores for various mobiles.
Here are some linpack scores for desktop CPUs to give you a comparison.
1.26GHz Pentium III - 503
1.0GHz PowerPC G4 - 284
433MHz Celeron - 160
200MHz Pentium Pro - 62
There a ton more scores listed HERE. Tests are legit done by UT. But notice the old ass pentium pro 200mhz outscores the EVO's 1Ghz snapdragon? This just reiterates why I said it's apples vs. oranges.
Most processors are rated by clock speed. "1 GHz" is talking about clock speed. A 1GHz processor goes through one billion cycles per second.
The reason this is hairy is because every CPU architecture is different. An Intel Core i5 will generally be slower than an Intel Core i7, even if the clock speed is exactly the same.
A phone processor is radically different from a computer processor. Most computers use an "x86" processor. Phones typically use an "ARM" processor, which is entirely different from x86. It may take longer than x86 to perform the same operation, because the actual "instructions" required for the operation are different than they would be on x86.
Certain processors have special "instruction sets" and other optimizations that allow them to accomplish the same amount of work in fewer clock cycles. There are also varying amounts of cache. A "cache miss" refers to a situation where the CPU needs data that is not in its cache. When that occurs, the processor has to go to RAM (very slow compared to cache) or heaven forbid mass storage (snail's pace compared to cache).
Most people don't know that a CPU spends most of its time waiting. Several times a second, the CPU has to wait while the RAM refreshes itself. That can burn millions of clock cycles. The CPU can easily spend billions of cycles waiting for data from mass storage.
There are several other reasons. I've tried to cover the big ones without getting too caught up in technical details.
First of all Im new to the forum so hello lol
I have a question about qualcomm...I know that the scorpion processor in the next generation 45 nm chip but what I dont understand is why is it clocked at 800mhz?
The made it such a big deal crossing the 1ghz mark and I would assume that they would never look back. I might not have my facts straight but dosent the 45 nm run clock-cycles just like a 65 nm but more efficiently in respect of battery consumption.
It looks as if they wanted to get in on the low-end Android market share. As for the G2 which I love, my friend ran quadrant pro infront of me and it shows the cpu was scored what looked like 20% lower than the nexus one at 2.2 (my guess from looking at it) but of coarse the gpu trashed the nexus one.
I saw a interview on engadget about a week ago about googles executive that said soon there will be a clear distinction or line between low end Android and high end Android devices. I wonder if HTC is in contact with google about future updates in order to release devices adequate enough to run them or are they just blindly releasing high build quality devices lol
Sorry about the long post but I had come up with a few questions that I didn't want to ask anywhere else.
Thanks.
Wait until our geniuses figure out root then you can happily run it a 1 Ghz+. If you look at the spec scheets for the MSM7230 then you will see it's rated for speeds 800-1000. Higher speeds=lower battery life, so the reasons for having it clocked lower are very practical. My G2 can average 1600-1650 on quadrant, so I don't think it's that bad.
azzeh3 said:
First of all Im new to the forum so hello lol
I have a question about qualcomm...I know that the scorpion processor in the next generation 45 nm chip but what I dont understand is why is it clocked at 800mhz?
The made it such a big deal crossing the 1ghz mark and I would assume that they would never look back. I might not have my facts straight but dosent the 45 nm run clock-cycles just like a 65 nm but more efficiently in respect of battery consumption.
It looks as if they wanted to get in on the low-end Android market share. As for the G2 which I love, my friend ran quadrant pro infront of me and it shows the cpu was scored what looked like 20% lower than the nexus one at 2.2 (my guess from looking at it) but of coarse the gpu trashed the nexus one.
I saw a interview on engadget about a week ago about googles executive that said soon there will be a clear distinction or line between low end Android and high end Android devices. I wonder if HTC is in contact with google about future updates in order to release devices adequate enough to run them or are they just blindly releasing high build quality devices lol
Sorry about the long post but I had come up with a few questions that I didn't want to ask anywhere else.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MHz is a misleading statistic to judge performance by. A 1GHz processor is not guaranteed to be faster than an 800MHz one. What is always true, though, is that a given processor running at 1GHz will take more energy than the same processor running at 800MHz. Because these new processors are so fast, even at 800MHz, they are competitive or even faster than any other phone on the market today. However by clocking them a bit slower, they also have quite serviceable battery life.
In daily use, it is unlikely that you would notice much difference between 800MHz and 1GHz with this cpu. They are both plenty fast, and most of the time the CPU will be waiting for you, not the other way around. However if it were clocked at 1GHz, you would immediately see a shorter battery life, so to my mind the sacrifice is well worth it.
As far as any fears that this might be a "low end phone", make no mistake, this is the premiere Android phone on the market right now. The Droid 2 may have a higher profile, but it is slower, has a slower network, and uses a non-standard GUI (not to mention a whole lot more expensive when you factor in the price of the service). No phone will have every possible feature that people want, but as far as raw capabilities go, there is no better phone on the market today as far as I can see.
Those seem to be very valid points and thanks for the input..
One other thing when exactly do you need 1ghz of processing speed?? I mean back in the day the macbook air used a 1.5 ghz processor..
Also where dose the ram come into play?
azzeh3 said:
Those seem to be very valid points and thanks for the input..
One other thing when exactly do you need 1ghz of processing speed?? I mean back in the day the macbook air used a 1.5 ghz processor..
Also where dose the ram come into play?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RAM is a far bigger determiner of performance on a day-to-day basis than processor speed, at least to a point. You could have a 10GHz computer, but if you only had 64k of RAM it would crawl along miserably slow.
In either case, there is a point of diminishing returns, though as applications become more demanding that point gets higher and higher. I remember selling Mac's back in the early-mid 90's and telling eople, don't worry, 16Megs of RAM (a huge amount back then when the standard was 4MB) would handle anything they could throw at it. Little did I know that just 15 years later I would have 500x that much in my desktop and 32x as much in my cell phone!
I am by no means a Andoid systems expert, but from what I have read there is not much benefit of having more than 512MB of RAM with the current versions of the Android OS. I would have preferred that they included 1GB of RAM just for a future growth path, but I can understand why they didn't. Each of these features costs money, so you have to draw the line someplace, you can't included every feature people may ask for in every phone.
Your right lol How will the big companies make any money if they give you everything you wanted....
I've never kept a phone for more than 8 months because of updated stats but lately there is a boom in technology so its going to be more like 4 months now hahaha
So with the new Dual Core phones coming out I'm wondering... What's all the hullabaloo?
I just finished reading the Moto Atrix review from Engadget and it sounds like crap. They said docking to the ridiculously priced webtop accessory was slow as shiz.
Anyone who knows better, please educate me. I'd like to know what is or will be offered that Dual Core will be capable of that our current gen phones will NOT be capable of.
For one thing (my main interest anyway) dual core cpu's and beyond give us better battery life. If we end up having more data intensive apps and Android becomes more powerful multi-core cpu's will help a lot also. Naturally Android will need to be broken down and revamped to utilize multiple cores to their full potential though. At some point I can see Google using more or merging a large part of the desktop linux kernel to help with that process.
At the rate Android (and smart phones in general) is progressing, someday we may see a 64bit OS on a phone, we will definitely need multi-core cpu's then. I know, it's a bit of a dream but it's probably not too elaborate.
KCRic said:
For one thing (my main interest anyway) dual core cpu's and beyond give us better battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd really, REALLY like to know how you came to that particular conclusion. While a dual core might not eat through quite as much wattage as two single cores, one that takes less is pure snakeoil IMO. I have yet to see a dual core CPU that is rated lower than a comparable single core on the desktop. Why would this be different for phones?
Software and OSes that can handle a dual core CPU need additional CPU cycles to manage the threading this results in, so if anything, dual core CPUs will greatly, GREATLY diminish battery life.
The original posters question is valid. What the heck would one need dual core CPUs in phones for? Personally, I can't think of anything. Running several apps in parallel was a piece of cake way before dual CPUs and more power can easily be obtained through increasing the clock speed.
I'm not saying my parent poster is wrong, but I sure as heck can't imagine the physics behind his statement. So if I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me.
I can see dual cores offering a smoother user experience -- one core could be handling an audio stream while the other is doing phone crap. I don't see how it could improve battery life though....
The theory is that two cores can accomplish the same thing as a single core while only working half as hard, I've seen several articles stating that dual cores will help battery life. Whether that is true I don't know.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Kokuyo, while you do have a point about dual cores being overkill in a phone I remember long ago people saying "why would you ever need 2gb of RAM in a PC" or "who could ever fill up a 1tb hard drive."
Thing is wouldnt the apps themselves have to be made to take advantage of dual cores as well?
JBunch1228; The short-term answer is nothing. Same answer as the average joe asking what he needs a quad-core in his desktop for. Right now it seems as much a sales gimmick as anything else, since the only Android ver that can actually make use of it is HC. Kinda like the 4G bandwagon everyone jumped on, all marketing right now.
Personally, I;d like to se what happens with the paradigm the Atrix is bringing out in a year or so. Put linux on a decent sized SSD for the laptop component, and use the handset for processing and communications exclusivley, rather than try and use the 'laptop dock' as nothing more than an external keyboard
As far as battery life, I can see how dual-cores could affect it positively, as a dual core doesnt pull as much power as two individual cores, and, if the chip is running for half as long as a single core would for the same operation, that would give you better batt life. Everyone keep in mind I said *if*. I don't see that happening before Q4, since the OS and apps need to be optimized for it.
My $.02 before depreciation.
Then there are the rumors of mobile quad-cores from Nvidia by Q4 as well. I'll keep my single core Vision, and see whats out there when my contract ends. We may have a whole new world.
KCRic said:
For one thing (my main interest anyway) dual core cpu's and beyond give us better battery life. If we end up having more data intensive apps and Android becomes more powerful multi-core cpu's will help a lot also. Naturally Android will need to be broken down and revamped to utilize multiple cores to their full potential though. At some point I can see Google using more or merging a large part of the desktop linux kernel to help with that process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that's complete nonsense.
You can't add parts and end up using less power.
Also, Android needs no additional work to support multiple cores. Android runs on the LINUX KERNEL, which is ***THE*** choice for multi-core/multi-processor supercomputers. Android applications run each in their own process, the linux kernel then takes over process swapping. Android applications also are *already* multi-threaded (unless the specific application developer was a total newb).
At the rate Android (and smart phones in general) is progressing, someday we may see a 64bit OS on a phone, we will definitely need multi-core cpu's then. I know, it's a bit of a dream but it's probably not too elaborate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's the connection? Just because the desktop processor manufacturers went multi-core and 64bit at roughly the same time doesn't mean that the two are even *slightly* related. Use of a 64bit OS on a phone certainly does ***NOT*** somehow require that the processor be multi-core.
dhkr234 said:
Wow, that's complete nonsense.
You can't add parts and end up using less power.
Also, Android needs no additional work to support multiple cores. Android runs on the LINUX KERNEL, which is ***THE*** choice for multi-core/multi-processor supercomputers. Android applications run each in their own process, the linux kernel then takes over process swapping. Android applications also are *already* multi-threaded (unless the specific application developer was a total newb).
What's the connection? Just because the desktop processor manufacturers went multi-core and 64bit at roughly the same time doesn't mean that the two are even *slightly* related. Use of a 64bit OS on a phone certainly does ***NOT*** somehow require that the processor be multi-core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The connection lies in the fact that this is technology we're talking about. It continually advances and does is at a rapid rate. No where in it did I say we'll make that jump 'at the same time'. Linux is not ***THE*** choice for multi-core computers, I use Sabayon but also Win7 seems to do just fine with multiple cores. Android doesn't utilize multi-core processors to their full potential and also uses a modified version of the linux kernel (which does fully support multi-core systems), that's whay I made the statement about merging. Being linux and being based on linux are not the same thing. Think of iOS or OSX - based on linux but tell me, how often do linux instuctions work for a Mac?
"you can't add parts and use less power", the car industry would like you clarify that, along with the computer industry. 10 years ago how much energy did electronics use? Was the speed and power vs. power consumption ratio better than it is today? No? I'll try to give an example that hopefully explains why consumes less power.
Pizza=data
People=processors
Time=heat and power consumption
1 person takes 20 minutes to eat 1 whole pizza while 4 people take only 5 minutes. That one person is going to have to work harder and longer in order to complete the same task as the 4 people. That will use more energy and generate much more heat. Heat, as we know, causes processors to become less efficient which means more energy is wasted at the higher clock cycles and less information processed per cycle.
It's not a very technical explanation of why a true multi-core system uses less power but it will have to do. Maybe ask NVidia too since they stated the Tegra processors are more power efficient.
KCRic said:
The connection lies in the fact that this is technology we're talking about. It continually advances and does is at a rapid rate. No where in it did I say we'll make that jump 'at the same time'. Linux is not ***THE*** choice for multi-core computers, I use Sabayon but also Win7 seems to do just fine with multiple cores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Show me ***ONE*** supercomputer that runs wondoze. I DARE YOU! They don't exist!
Android doesn't utilize multi-core processors to their full potential and also uses a modified version of the linux kernel (which does fully support multi-core systems), that's whay I made the statement about merging. Being linux and being based on linux are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
??? No, being LINUX and GNU/LINUX are not the same. ANDROID ***IS*** LINUX, but not GNU/LINUX. The kernel is the kernel. The modifications? Have nothing to do with ANYTHING this thread touches on. The kernel is FAR too complex for Android to have caused any drastic changes.
Think of iOS or OSX - based on linux but tell me, how often do linux instuctions work for a Mac?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Fruitcakes does NOT use LINUX ***AT ALL***. They use MACH. A *TOTALLY DIFFERENT* kernel.
"you can't add parts and use less power", the car industry would like you clarify that, along with the computer industry. 10 years ago how much energy did electronics use? Was the speed and power vs. power consumption ratio better than it is today? No? I'll try to give an example that hopefully explains why consumes less power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those changes are NOT RELATED to adding cores, but making transistors SMALLER.
Pizza=data
People=processors
Time=heat and power consumption
1 person takes 20 minutes to eat 1 whole pizza while 4 people take only 5 minutes. That one person is going to have to work harder and longer in order to complete the same task as the 4 people. That will use more energy and generate much more heat. Heat, as we know, causes processors to become less efficient which means more energy is wasted at the higher clock cycles and less information processed per cycle.
It's not a very technical explanation of why a true multi-core system uses less power but it will have to do. Maybe ask NVidia too since they stated the Tegra processors are more power efficient.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have come up with a whole lot of nonsense that has ABSOLUTELY NO relation to multiple cores.
Energy consumption is related to CPU TIME.
You take a program that takes 10 minutes of CPU time to execute on a single-core 3GHz processor, split it between TWO otherwise identical cores operating at the SAME FREQUENCY, add in some overhead to split it between two cores, and you have 6 minutes of CPU time on TWO cores, which is 20% *MORE* energy consumed on a dual-core processor.
And you want to know what NVIDIA will say about their bloatchips? It uses less power than *THEIR* older hardware because it has **SMALLER TRANSISTORS** that require less energy.
Don't quite your day job, computer engineering is NOT YOUR FORTE.
dhkr234 said:
Show me ***ONE*** supercomputer that runs wondoze. I DARE YOU! They don't exist!
??? No, being LINUX and GNU/LINUX are not the same. ANDROID ***IS*** LINUX, but not GNU/LINUX. The kernel is the kernel. The modifications? Have nothing to do with ANYTHING this thread touches on. The kernel is FAR too complex for Android to have caused any drastic changes.
No. Fruitcakes does NOT use LINUX ***AT ALL***. They use MACH. A *TOTALLY DIFFERENT* kernel.
Those changes are NOT RELATED to adding cores, but making transistors SMALLER.
You have come up with a whole lot of nonsense that has ABSOLUTELY NO relation to multiple cores.
Energy consumption is related to CPU TIME.
You take a program that takes 10 minutes of CPU time to execute on a single-core 3GHz processor, split it between TWO otherwise identical cores operating at the SAME FREQUENCY, add in some overhead to split it between two cores, and you have 6 minutes of CPU time on TWO cores, which is 20% *MORE* energy consumed on a dual-core processor.
And you want to know what NVIDIA will say about their bloatchips? It uses less power than *THEIR* older hardware because it has **SMALLER TRANSISTORS** that require less energy.
Don't quite your day job, computer engineering is NOT YOUR FORTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you think that its just a gimmick or trend then why does every laptop manufacturer use dual core or more and have better battery life than the old single core? Sometimes trends do have more use than aesthetic appeal. Your know-it-all approach is nothing new around here and you're not the only person who works in IT around. Theories are one thing but without any proof when ALL current tech says otherwise... makes you sound like a idiot. Sorry...
I bet I can pee further
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
zaelia said:
I bet I can pee further
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The smaller ones usually can, I think it has to do with the urethra being more narrow as to allow a tighter, further shooting stream.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
TJBunch1228 said:
The smaller ones usually can, I think it has to do with the urethra being more narrow as to allow a tighter, further shooting stream.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, you would know
sino8r said:
Well, you would know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might be short but it sure is skinny.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
sino8r said:
If you think that its just a gimmick or trend then why does every laptop manufacturer use dual core or more and have better battery life than the old single core? Sometimes trends do have more use than aesthetic appeal. Your know-it-all approach is nothing new around here and you're not the only person who works in IT around. Theories are one thing but without any proof when ALL current tech says otherwise... makes you sound like a idiot. Sorry...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I was comparing speeds on the Atrix compared to the [email protected] and they matched. The Atrix was much more efficient on heat and probably with battery. The dual cores will use less power because the two cores will be better optimized for splitting the tasks and will use half the power running the same process as the single core because the single core runs at the same voltages for a single core compared to splitting it between two. Let's not start a flame war and make personal attacks on people
Sent from my HTC Vision with Habanero FAST 1.1.0
It is disturbing that there are people out there who can't understand this VERY BASIC engineering.
Voltage, by itself, has NO MEANING. You are forgetting about CURRENT. POWER = CURRENT x VOLTAGE.
Battery drain is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to POWER. Not voltage. Double the voltage and half the current, power remains the same.
Dual core does NOT increase battery life. It increases PERFORMANCE by ***DOUBLING*** the physical processing units.
Battery life is increased through MINIATURIZATION and SIMPLIFICATION, which becomes *EXTREMELY* important as you increase the number of physical processing units.
It is the epitome of IGNORANCE to assume that there is some relation when there is not. The use of multiple cores relates to hard physical limitations of the silicon. You can't run the silicon at 18 GHz! Instead of racing for higher frequencies, the new competition is about how much work you can do with the SAME frequency, and the ***EASIEST*** way to do this is to bolt on more cores!
For arguments sake, take a look at a couple of processors;
Athlon II X2 240e / C3.... 45 watt TDP, 45 nm
Athlon II X4 630 / C3.... 95 watt TDP, 45 nm
Same stepping, same frequency (2.8 GHz), same voltage, same size, and the one with twice the cores eats more than twice the power. Wow, imagine that!
The X4 is, of course, FASTER, but not by double.
Now lets look at another pair of processors;
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ / E6.... 89 watt TDP, 90 nm
Athlon II X2 270u / C3.... 25 watt TDP, 45 nm
Different stepping, SAME frequency (2.0 GHz), same number of cores, different voltage, different SIZE, WAY different power consumption. JUST LOOK how much more power the older chip eats!!! 3.56 times as much. Also note that other power management features exist on the C3 that didn't exist on the E6, so the difference in MINIMUM power consumption is much greater.
Conclusion: There is no correlation between a reduction in power consumption and an increase in the number of PPUs. More PPUs = more performance. Reduction in power consumption is related to size, voltage, and other characteristics.
dhkr234 said:
Don't quite your day job, computer engineering is NOT YOUR FORTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good job on being a douche. I didn't insult you in anything I said and if you disagree over my perspective then state it otherwise shut up. I didn't tell you english grammar isn't your forte so maybe you should keep your senile remarks to yourself.
You seem to want to argue over a few technicalities and I'll admit, I don't have a PhD in computer engineering but then again I doubt you do either. For the average person to begin to understand the inner-workings of a computer requires you to set aside the technical details and generalize everything. When they read about a Mac, they will see the word Unix which also happens to appear in things written about Linux and would inevitably make a connection about both being based off of the same thing (which they are). In that sense, I'm correct - you're wrong. The average person doesn't differentiate between 'is' and 'based off', most people take them in the same context.
So I may be wrong in some things when you get technical but when you're talking to the average person that thinks the higher the CPU core clock is = the better the processor, you end up being wrong because they won't give a damn about the FSB or anything else. Also, when you start flaming people and jumping them over insignificant things you come off as a complete douche. If I'm wrong on something then tactfully and politely correct me - don't try to act like excerebrose know-it-all. Let's not even mention completely going off track about about Windoze, servers aren't the only things that have multi-core processors.
I'm sure you'll try to multi-quote me with a slew of unintelligent looking, lame comebacks and corrections but in the end you'll just prove my point about the type of person you are. ****The End****
KCRic said:
Good job on being a douche. I didn't insult you in anything I said and if you disagree over my perspective then state it otherwise shut up. I didn't tell you english grammar isn't your forte so maybe you should keep your senile remarks to yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreeing or disagreeing is pointless when discussing FACTS. Perspective has nothing to do with FACTS. You can think whatever you like, but it doesn't make you right.
You seem to want to argue over a few technicalities and I'll admit, I don't have a PhD in computer engineering but then again I doubt you do either.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Common mistake, assuming that everybody is the same as you. Try not to make that assumption again.
For the average person to begin to understand the inner-workings of a computer requires you to set aside the technical details and generalize everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Generalizations lead to inaccuracies. You do not teach by generalizing, you teach by starting from the bottom and building a foundation of knowledge. Rene Descartes (aka Renatus Cartesius, as in Cartesian geometric system, as in the father of analytical geometry) said that the foundation of all knowledge is that doubting one's own existence is itself proof that there is someone to doubt it -- "Cogito Ergo Sum" -- "I think therefore I am". Everything must begin with this.
When they read about a Mac, they will see the word Unix which also happens to appear in things written about Linux and would inevitably make a connection about both being based off of the same thing (which they are). In that sense, I'm correct - you're wrong. The average person doesn't differentiate between 'is' and 'based off', most people take them in the same context.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... and need to be CORRECTED for it. The two kernels (the only components relevant to this discussion) are completely different! MACH is a MICRO kernel, Linux is a MONOLITHIC kernel. Superficial characteristics (which are OUTSIDE of the kernel) be damned, they are NOT the same thing and thinking that they are is invalid. The average person is irrelevant, FACTS are FACTS.
So I may be wrong in some things when you get technical but when you're talking to the average person that thinks the higher the CPU core clock is = the better the processor, you end up being wrong because they won't give a damn about the FSB or anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So are you trying to tell me that IGNORANCE is BLISS? Because "giving a damn" or not has NO BEARING on reality. The sky is blue. You think that its purple and don't give a damn, does that make it purple? No, it does not.
Also, when you start flaming people and jumping them over insignificant things you come off as a complete douche. If I'm wrong on something then tactfully and politely correct me - don't try to act like excerebrose know-it-all. Let's not even mention completely going off track about about Windoze, servers aren't the only things that have multi-core processors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, servers AREN'T the only thing running multi-core processors, but did you not read where I SPECIFICALLY said **SERVERS**? Wondoze is off track and UNRELATED. I brought up servers because THEY USE THE SAME KERNEL AS ANDROID. If a supercomputer uses Linux, do you not agree that Linux is CLEARLY capable of multiprocessing well enough to meet the needs of a simple phone?
I'm sure you'll try to multi-quote me with a slew of unintelligent looking, lame comebacks and corrections but in the end you'll just prove my point about the type of person you are. ****The End****
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... perfectionist, intelligent, PATIENT in dealing with ignorance. And understand that ignorance is not an insult when it is true, and contrary to common "belief", does NOT mean stupid. Learn the facts and you will cease to be ignorant of them.
So hopefully this train can be put back on the tracks...
From what I am understanding from more technical minded individuals, Dual Core should help with battery life because it requires less power to run the same things as single core. It can then probably be extrapolated that when pushed, Dual Core will be able to go well above and beyond its Single Core brethren in terms of processing power.
For now, it appears the only obvious benefit will be increased battery life and less drain on the processor due to overworking. Hopefully in the near future more CPU and GPU intensive processes are introduced to the market which will fully utilize the Dual Core's potential in the smartphone world. Thanks for all the insight.
dhkr234 - *slaps air high-five*
Can anyone develop an app which can set CPU speed in WP7 phones???
probably.
Now, this would be kind of cool!! Especially if i can run my samsung focus at 1.4ghz
Overclocking by 40% would probably destroy your phone... just saying.
GoodDayToDie said:
Overclocking by 40% would probably destroy your phone... just saying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think so. My old Omnia HD (Symbian) can be overclocked from 600mhz to 900/950mhz (50% more) without problem, with an elder architecture...
I wish to see 2nd Gen. devices how much can be overclocked...1.8 Ghz will be great! But Wp is the faster OS yet =D
Older architectures are actually often better for overclocking, because they're not running as close to the theoretical limit on the speed of the chip (the practical limit is based on heat dissipation capability, but there are other limits that are more subtle and tend to just result in weird hardware errors rather than thermal shutoff). That said, 1GHz is still probably pretty far from the limit.
I wouldn't oc for my device just to watch the speed of the cpu or maybe just a little bit
I think this will be useful only for device with new cpu with 1ghz clock like radar
Thread Closed
Do not post questions in this section!
I am a big fan of benchmarks but are there are really important
Please say what Kenel are you using.
No.
-----
I would love to help you, but help yourself first: ask a better question
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
It really depends what you find important and what's useless. Its just for the certain few enthusiasts who like tweaking their devices and testing out different values to achieve a higher benchmark score and brag about it. I'm one of them although for the Note 2 I see little or no difference in performance when comparing between an over clocked and a stock setting.
Sent from the Rabbit Hole
Some people are disagree with overclock some not, benchmark are high only with overclock but if they are not important what are the reason?
I personally think that having a benchmark with a phones overclock settings turned on is the best way to see the true strength of a phone.
Some phones being overclocked do not even come close to other phones with out it being overclocked
Sent from my SPH-L900 using xda app-developers app
So overclock or no overclock?
What you prefer?
When it comes to mobile phones, be it a ultra top end smartphone, absolutely not.
Swyped from my GT-N7100
for me, benchmark is only for fun and push it to the best performance of Note 2.
but for daily i still overclocked, 1.8GHz
it was stable and response very well..
Good way to compare devices. Although I do not overclock for my daily usage.
They are not for everyday thing but they tell their stories. For example I am a GPU comparison addict. I believe the GPUs are the first aging parts of the chipsets and if the GPU is not enough no matter what CPU or phone it is, it will fade away quickly. So when I am choosing a product I take one of the Nexus devices as a reference. For my Note 2, my referance was Nexus 7. Sİnce it will be getting at least 1.5 year support (the worst scenerio) Note will run any game for that time period.
So GLbenchmark comes in. Then it lets us to compare Nexus 4 and Note 2. What we can learn from it is, for example, Mali 400 is better for higher resolutions since 1080p and 720p results are same. Mali 400s quad core processors are so powerfull that they can not be effected by MSAAx4 or higher resolutions where Adreno 320 tenst to slow down however it has a bottle neck on the pixel processor side and it gets stuck on the Egypt 2.5 test no matter how much we OC it. So newer games will be a problem for Note 2 we can say. For the more older-coded games which are still close to the Egypt 2.1 side Adreno barely has %5-7 advantage over the Mali 400 so no problem for a long time.
Thanks for reply:good: