Develop Bugs

SPEED

Anybody found anything useful on how to speed up this slow bugger? ive tried cleaner ROMS, wm 6.1, changing the pp, and doing the usual reg hacks for changing the glyph, font, and file system cache as high as they will go but...its still so slow all the time!
for a dual-core, brand new device...i was really expecting more.
anything anyone?
thanks.

You say it's slow but in what sense though..
Also, if you expect it to be PC fast then we all know it's not going to happen. Also, fast could be referring to personal preference (I think), cuz my device is fast in terms of menu responded in timely manner, connection is good enough. For most part, I don't have to wait 8 seconds for something to show up after I clicked it. But some programs I have require a little time to load like sprint tv it takes about 3 seconds.
Also, checkout HTC Performance, some say it worked on Touch some say it doesnt due to dual core in touch.
Good luck.

vboyz103 said:
You say it's slow but in what sense though..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i mean that when i click "settings" in the start menu, i have to wait a good 3-4 seconds before it comes up, and another 3 seconds before it will respond. on a clean stock rom, 6.1, or dcd's 0.2.0 rom. messaging is (slightly?) slow to open...
not sure what other specific things there are. the device just seems to be overall sluggish.
thanks for the tip on the htc performance, i will give that a shot and see.
i just wish wizcode could put out their v5 build that supports the 7500 chipset! looks like the wait for a faster device and longer battery is still about a month off sadly...

HTC Performance won't work on the qualcomm processor in your device. I haven't seen any word yet on an overclocker for the qualcomm chips.

I find the vogue quite fast, but not as fast as my 624mhz dell axim x50v with wm6
thats stinkin fast.

My Mogul was faster then the damn Touch guys, come on... half as much RAM, otherwise, same hardware. Explain THAT. If HTC would just get off their collective asses and release the video drivers...

I agree, my XV6700 (WM6, Helmi) was quite a bit faster at some things.
I hate the lag I'm seeing on some of the buttons (end call for one even with hack to speed it up) and others.

trehouse said:
I agree, my XV6700 (WM6, Helmi) was quite a bit faster at some things.
I hate the lag I'm seeing on some of the buttons (end call for one even with hack to speed it up) and others.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
pretty sure that my dads axim x30, with ppc 2003 or whatever, has a screen that is A HUNDRED times more responsive/sensitive (pretty retarded of HTC to make an all touch device for the masses that isnt have as responsive as a device released 4-5 years ago) and the device just runs so much faster.
everything is instant on the x30. you barely even have to touch the screen, adn BAM. you are already there. whereas on the vogue you would still be in the process of getting the screen to recognize that you had touched it, then wait for it to respond and get moving.
true, that device has a 624mhz processor, but it only has half the ram. this device is 5 years newer with an os 5 years newer, yet still FAR slower.
it makes me so mad how unresponsive the screen on this device is compared to the x30.

I know the HTC Performance app supposedly doesn't work on our touch....but with mine overclocked to 524Mhz, it seems like everything just opens much faster. (I can especially tell with Opera and the Messaging app).

Red49er said:
I know the HTC Performance app supposedly doesn't work on our touch....but with mine overclocked to 524Mhz, it seems like everything just opens much faster. (I can especially tell with Opera and the Messaging app).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmm, strange. i didnt notice any difference when i tried it.
have you tried shutting off the "overclocking", waiting 10 seconds, then shutting down, then waiting 10 seconds, then poking the reset hole and trying the app's mentioned again? is there a definite speed increase if you try doing that?

ludester said:
I find the vogue quite fast, but not as fast as my 624mhz dell axim x50v with wm6
thats stinkin fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the X50V on the lastest wm6 rom and the vogue runs circles around it. The only way the x50v is fast is with one small application open. The only speed advantage I see is in games and videos because of built-in video acceleration.
Nate

Vogue is plenty fast for me.

"ReadyBoost" for Android?

Hello,
Why isnt it possible to use SDCRAM as sort of RAM in android? same as VISA/7 Using ReadyBoost to expand the ram with an USB disk on keys?
thanks!

Why would you want that?

since you only use flash based memory anyway: that's called swaping

And is Swap enabled in all froyo roms today?

rommark said:
And is Swap enabled in all froyo roms today?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But why would you need it? You have 512MB of RAM, with a clean boot you have around 200-220MB of it free for whatever you want to do with it. Not enough for you?

martino2k6 said:
But why would you need it? You have 512MB of RAM, with a clean boot you have around 200-220MB of it free for whatever you want to do with it. Not enough for you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
won't heavy 3d games eat that?

rommark said:
won't heavy 3d games eat that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Smartphones =/= PCs. And if you are really out of space for a short amount of time, unneeded processes get killed automatically. Swap was only really needed on the G1 but definitely not on the Desire.

rommark said:
won't heavy 3d games eat that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, that's a bit too much even for a game... unless the code has memory leaks. With so much RAM it'd make more sense to use ramdisk (but who knows for what good use)

martino2k6 said:
No, that's a bit too much even for a game... unless the code has memory leaks. With so much RAM it'd make more sense to use ramdisk (but who knows for what good use)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RamDisk could be insane for 3d gaming as then the textures would have fast extraction means less delay in rendering....

What Readyboost is NOT
Hey folks. I've only recently discovered Readyboost as I'm primarily a Linux guy. I got all hot and bothered about it immediately as well as it is (despite Microsofts constant onslaught of horrific failures) an absolutely brilliant and elegant technology/idea.
HOWEVER!!!
Nearly everyone is confused about what RB actually does, so I thought I'd take a minute to explain.
ReadyBoost is NOT swap. NOT SWAP!, not swap.
Swap is not something to get excited about, it is a last resort for when you're out of RAM and it's excruciatingly slow. In the land of IT, one of the first things we check for when a server is experiencing horrible performance, is "IS THIS MACHINE SWAPPING". Everyone's gotta learn that swap, while it is more useful than "not enough memory" it is nor more useful than utilizing the memory you already have, and it will always result in poor performance.
ReadyBoost is an additional disc cache for small, non-sequential reads/writes. It works with your existing FS cache but is faster in some cases because FLASH has a much lower seek time. Most FLASH chips have a seek time of <1ms while most rotational discs have a seek time of around 8ms. This adds up on a large number of small non-sequential r/w.
ReadyBoost takes any caching operations which fit it's strength profile (small, non-sequential) and offloads them to your FLASH device. This can increase load speed of some files/application dramatically (2-20x faster).
So, when someone asks you if they can use Readyboost because they don't have enough memory, please, take a moment to explain that RB is not swap, but is in fact a supplementary disc cache for small, non-sequential reads and writes.
That said, I haven't had time to dig into the question of whether or not RB would benefit Linux FS's.

I know this is a really old thread but I just wanted to put my two cents in. Memory boosting apps like ReadyBoost do have a viable purpose. That is keeping older hardware viable as minimum specs increase. There is an Android app that is equivilant to ReadyBoost called Roehsoft RAM Expander. There are mixed reviews for its performance but that is to be expected. If this app helps my aging 8227_Demo head unit work well enough for me to not replace it I will update this post.

[q] Livewallpapers

Hello!
I-m trying to apply several live wallpapers. Some crash, its acceptable.
Others, plain buggy. Example: Galatic Core.
I select it in the Livewallpapers selector, it does not error, and shows a black screen. i press settings, get the message "buy the app", and then it shows!
If i then select it, i get a black screen... and then the original wallpaper again.
Anyone got more luck than i ?

They were never meant to run on our phones so they will be iffy at best for performance
Also if your using cm6 that's a known issue across the board with them
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App

thoughtlesskyle said:
They were never meant to run on our phones so they will be iffy at best for performance
Also if your using cm6 that's a known issue across the board with them
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you guys please stop doing that ?
"" XPTO was not meant to run on our phone ""
What is it there... that our phones have... or have not... that make a given app not run ? Sure... we can agree on "it wasn't designed for 320x240. Ok, i agree too.
But either than that ?? Yeah, our CPU is the slower MSM on the field, at least compared to Diamonds/Raphaels and upwards... but hey!! We have 1/4 of the pixels to take care of. That sould give us some room...
Now, don't get me wrong. It was not designed to run Android. But that doesn't mean it was not meant to. Take for example a simple little phone, sold here on Portugal as Optimus Boston. It has a MSM cpu... it came with 1.6 running at 600mhz... but the latest update to Eclair 2.1... underclocked it to 480. My kaiser usually runs at 550. (official rom, its possible to have custom roms running at the original 600.) and it still is a great phone... look at the simple specs :
http://www.gsmarena.com/gigabyte_gsmart_g1305_boston-3201.php
Now, someone explain... why can't our Kaiser/Vogue/Polaris run Android like that leatle freak underclocked to 480 runs. Please.

The fact that we have absolutely no RAM doesn't play into it ever since sheer clock speed always determines speed, to be honest I haven't even seen them run well on my hero and I have it OC'd to 691
But hey if you want to argue about it there are links to the source around go in and fix the problem, most of the devs for this project have more important things to focus on at the moment
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App

thoughtlesskyle said:
The fact that we have absolutely no RAM doesn't play into it ever since sheer clock speed always determines speed, to be honest I haven't even seen them run well on my hero and I have it OC'd to 691
But hey if you want to argue about it there are links to the source around go in and fix the problem, most of the devs for this project have more important things to focus on at the moment
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do not feel ofended. It was not my intention.
My point is that if we had accepted the slowness of our devices, we would never had attempted to port Android.
As for the RAM, agree.. it is a bottleneck...
Now, has for speed... i've seen them run well... on other devices of course.

I did many tests on my Kais130 Fresh Froyo, about livewallpapers
I agree with Daedric on the ability of our device.
I managed to run the "Grass" Wallpaper properly. Others, like Mario, Galactic Core, ... Sometimes with bugs and/or too many resources used.
It seems to me that LiveWallpapers work less well in the latest Froyo

Well were not the slowest android phone anymore. But that doesnt mean much, we still have a lot of instability. The ram limitation can be overcome with comp cache (virtual memory) but that brings only more instability and adds overhead that we don't need. Also the performance just isnt there yet. Our phones beat only one phone and thats because that phone doesnt have froyo on it. Otherwise it would beat ours out. Also that was with my kaiser overclocked to 572 mhz with a gpu overclock as well. Any other phone msm 7200 phone at those speeds kick our kaisers ass. I think the resource intense ones are just not meant to work well at all for us. My background works at least lol, I use a background that shows the core of a 486 cpu.

aceoyame said:
Well were not the slowest android phone anymore. But that doesnt mean much, we still have a lot of instability. The ram limitation can be overcome with comp cache (virtual memory) but that brings only more instability and adds overhead that we don't need. Also the performance just isnt there yet. Our phones beat only one phone and thats because that phone doesnt have froyo on it. Otherwise it would beat ours out. Also that was with my kaiser overclocked to 572 mhz with a gpu overclock as well. Any other phone msm 7200 phone at those speeds kick our kaisers ass. I think the resource intense ones are just not meant to work well at all for us. My background works at least lol, I use a background that shows the core of a 486 cpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should we assume... that at the same speed, diferent MSM devices offer diferent performance ? Or, are we simply doing still things wrong, i don't know, perhaps a poor schedule, buggy drivers which introduce lag, perhaps the graphic one.
We must remember, they kick our kaiser hard, but they have much more pixels, how can that be ?

[Q] Dual Core V. Single Core?

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*

killed all for ground apps TouchWiz UI uses up 2gb of ram?

So this is pretty crazy and weird but I killed all the apps running in the background and it says I'm using up 2.07gb of Ram how is that possible?

gator9422 said:
So this is pretty crazy and weird but I killed all the apps running in the background and it says I'm using up 2.07gb of Ram how is that possible?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why does it matter? There is a ton of memory in this phone, and the OS manages it very, very well. You don't need spare memory. This isn't Windows, you won't run out of memory. It stores what it thinks it needs in RAM and keeps it there for quick access. It uses all the memory all the time (or at least it should). One of the things that prevents lag is to have the stuff loaded and ready at a moments notice.
Its a question of how the OS runs, not how much memory its taking. I would prefer if they hid that stat all together, then people would stop fixating on it, and loading efficiency killing memory manager apps.
Much like running defrag on a modern hard drive (they are supposed to be fragmented, they work better and faster that way) Android is supposed to run 90-95% used memory.. ALL THE TIME. Its the way its designed, and it works better that way.

One of the biggest misconceptions on all of XDA is about used RAM in a phone. People are always saying "OMG, there is only 500mb of unused RAM on my phone, it's going to slow down to a crawl!".
Just to be clear and hopefully people will understand it....unused RAM is wasted RAM. It does NOT have anything to do with slowing your phone down or anything like that. If there is 1gb of free RAM on your Note 4, that's totally fine.
Android manages RAM very well, don't stress. That's actually way more than it needs. You can only have 200mb of RAM free and your phone would still run fine. It's the way it's supposed to work. We have more than enough RAM in this phone.
I just hope this misconception will finally go away. I see at least a few RAM threads in every device forum.

It doesn't matter to me it's just the fact that I don't have any apps open and TouchWiz itself uses up 2gb of Ram to me that's a lot js

gator9422 said:
It doesn't matter to me it's just the fact that I don't have any apps open and TouchWiz itself uses up 2gb of Ram to me that's a lot js
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It truly is a misconception. Android, windows, nix, any OS, for that matter. You would want too see your RAM being utilized. I would prefer to have my RAM used than not used at all because any unused RAM is a wasted RAM. This is also same with CPU. Unutilized cores are wasted cores. When writing software, one of the best practices is to learn how to use the memory to its full potential. You would want necessary stuff in RAM because using them when needed is faster if they are already loaded in memory than reinitializing the modules again and again every time for use. As far as memory location, RAM still provides the fastest. This is why in many companies that used gigabytes of data in their databases, a common practice in databadse engine technology is that they would actually load entire gigabytes of frequently accessed tables in memory for extremely fast access.
In short, don't worry

Thank you for the replies like they say you learn something new everyday. I appreciate the input

I'm more curious to know how the system manages to use more RAM every year with every new device released. Are there really that many more new features every year where they gobble up RAM?

gator9422 said:
Thank you for the replies like they say you learn something new everyday. I appreciate the input
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/cache-memory

Techweed said:
I'm more curious to know how the system manages to use more RAM every year with every new device released. Are there really that many more new features every year where they gobble up RAM?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My first computer had 512 mb RAM and it was fine at the time. Of course, with newer releases, they develop more features. With more features, more modules are created to support those features. Hence, more RAM usage.

^Wow, I think my first PC might have had 512 kb of RAM.

fbauto1 said:
My first computer had 512 mb RAM and it was fine at the time. Of course, with newer releases, they develop more features. With more features, more modules are created to support those features. Hence, more RAM usage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true but with Kit Kat we were supposed to get a leaner running OS so that it would run on even old devices with minimum RAM. And I don't see how Touchwiz by itself could add 1 GB of RAM usage between the Note 2 and Note 4.

I would disagree on wanting all the ram to be being used... On previous rooted phones I have had (GS2, GS3, GSA4) getting rid of bloatware/useless apps eating up my ram made it much more responsive and fluid when opening new programs while significantly increasing battery life. Seems people just spew the bull**** marketing lines of Google across the internet and expect people to take it as truth. User experience is what is important, and getting rid of the garbage on any android version will make it faster. Not a difficult concept to understand.

rcracer_tx said:
I would disagree on wanting all the ram to be being used... On previous rooted phones I have had (GS2, GS3, GSA4) getting rid of bloatware/useless apps eating up my ram made it much more responsive and fluid when opening new programs while significantly increasing battery life. Seems people just spew the bull**** marketing lines of Google across the internet and expect people to take it as truth. User experience is what is important, and getting rid of the garbage on any android version will make it faster. Not a difficult concept to understand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no bull**** here. Attend college and find out.
It is proven practice to use RAM
My source:
Myself with 15+ years as a software engineer

^^^This man speaks the truth. In my final year of my degree in software development and RAM utilization is common practice. User experience is different for everyone and what you "feel" is faster may or may not be an improvement.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using XDA Free mobile app

I think the goal of debloating should be to reduce the use of cpu by unwanted applications and reducing the amount of RAM taken up by them so that other applications may be cached instead. Whenever I debloat I start with watching applications that load and try to trim of the ones I know I don't need at all. I then move onto greenifying applications that run or cache themselves that I'll rarely use. Never in this process do I try to maximize free memory since doing so means applications that are not cached will take longer to launch. Im not sure if this is the right philosophy but it seems effective to me.

fbauto1 said:
There is no bull**** here. Attend college and find out.
It is proven practice to use RAM
My source:
Myself with 15+ years as a software engineer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already have two degrees from a major big 12 university. And do a good amount of IT work for the business I work at. If you think that having your ram eaten up by programs you never use is good practice, maybe you need to re-evaluate the school you got your education. Using your logic our computers should be faster when they are full of **** running in the background... That's asinine. Full AND EFFICIENT utilization of ram is proven practice, not filling up ram full of bloatware.
muzzy996 said:
I think the goal of debloating should be to reduce the use of cpu by unwanted applications and reducing the amount of RAM taken up by them so that other applications may be cached instead. Whenever I debloat I start with watching applications that load and try to trim of the ones I know I don't need at all. I then move onto greenifying applications that run or cache themselves that I'll rarely use. Never in this process do I try to maximize free memory since doing so means applications that are not cached will take longer to launch. Im not sure if this is the right philosophy but it seems effective to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said, I agree. I guess I didn't make the distinction of when freeing up ram being eaten up by crap that will never be opened, What I mean is that cached memory being freed up is then able to be used by apps that I actually use. If over 2gb out of 2.92gb is being used all the time, (with the vast majority being eaten up by bloatware and the rest just being the base OS/UI) then that is not efficient utilization of ram. If you have to kill cached programs constantly and then load the new program you begin using, its going to take longer than having that program already having everything cached. In most times this is only milliseconds difference, but the fluidity of the transition is important to many as it is a significant factor in user experience. Who wants a phone that lags whenever a user input is made?

rcracer_tx said:
Well said, I agree. I guess I didn't make the distinction of when freeing up ram being eaten up by crap that will never be opened, What I mean is that cached memory being freed up is then able to be used by apps that I actually use. If over 2gb out of 2.92gb is being used all the time, (with the vast majority being eaten up by bloatware and the rest just being the base OS/UI) then that is not efficient utilization of ram. If you have to kill cached programs constantly and then load the new program you begin using, its going to take longer than having that program already having everything cached. In most times this is only milliseconds difference, but the fluidity of the transition is important to many as it is a significant factor in user experience. Who wants a phone that lags whenever a user input is made?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is interesting that the vast majority of 2GB of your RAM is being using by bloatware. Between the Touchwiz function for turning off unneeded apps and Android's algorithms for determining what should be kept in memory, I find that "bloatware" apps (i.e., app I don't use) are practically non-existent in RAM...at least for me. That said, even if you still have 0.92 GB free, Android is not likely to decide it needs to kill an existing process to accommodate another program.

rcracer_tx said:
I already have two degrees from a major big 12 university. And do a good amount of IT work for the business I work at. If you think that having your ram eaten up by programs you never use is good practice, maybe you need to re-evaluate the school you got your education. Using your logic our computers should be faster when they are full of **** running in the background... That's asinine. Full AND EFFICIENT utilization of ram is proven practice, not filling up ram full of bloatware.
Well said, I agree. I guess I didn't make the distinction of when freeing up ram being eaten up by crap that will never be opened, What I mean is that cached memory being freed up is then able to be used by apps that I actually use. If over 2gb out of 2.92gb is being used all the time, (with the vast majority being eaten up by bloatware and the rest just being the base OS/UI) then that is not efficient utilization of ram. If you have to kill cached programs constantly and then load the new program you begin using, its going to take longer than having that program already having everything cached. In most times this is only milliseconds difference, but the fluidity of the transition is important to many as it is a significant factor in user experience. Who wants a phone that lags whenever a user input is made?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are comparing RAM utilization to bloatware?
Where did you get your degrees, eBay?

fbauto1 said:
You are comparing RAM utilization to bloatware?
Where did you get your degrees, eBay?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No... he's not. Read it again. His point is that programs he doesn't need utilizing ram is bad.
We're playing a game of semantics here. He is working the angle that the original posts saying 'using ram is good' isn't true if it is crap that is using it.
Silly discussion at this point as both sides are correct based on the parameters of their view point.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A