Related
There have been a lot of people who have been doing comparisons of various phones (particularly the Galaxy S2) to the Galaxy Nexus. I recalled during the Samsung/Google event them saying they chose to use an industry leading hardware inside the phone, so I decided to look into this a little further. As I'm sure you're well aware, the first thing people tend to point at are benchmarks. The gpu benchmarks are particularly what have come under fire when people make their comparisons. Though the mali 400 does bench out higher than the SGX540 the higher performance on the mali isn't a tangible benefit as "end device applications have not yet caught up with the highest graphics performance delivered by these" (http://armdevices.net/2011/10/26/interview-with-the-texas-instruments-omap4-team/). In other words that's like having a road with a 300mph speed limit but the cars are only able to achieve 120mph. Driving on the road with the 300mph speed limit won't get you there any faster than driving on a road with a 200mph speed limit if the speed of the car is the same.
As for processors, the processors as they are now are roughly on par with each other with them both being 45nm A9's clocked at 1.2. The difference between them is that the exynos 4210 is clocked at it's true clock speed at 1.2, whereas the omap 4460 is actually underclocked to 1.2 and has a true clock speed of 1.5. Thus meaning the processor has more speed potential than that of the exynos.
One thing that does stand out as an advantage of the omap 4460 over some of the competition is it's memory bus bandwidth. For those that don't know, in simple terms, it's how fast information can be read from and stored to memory by the processor. In other words, you can have the fastest processor in the world but if you don't have enough memory bandwidth to accommodate the amount of information that needs to be transferred then that speed won't matter because it will be bottlenecked. For example, let's say you have a car that can reach 200mph and you want to drive that car at full speed. However the street you're driving on can only handle 20 cars at a time, and you're the 21st car, well in this case you're going to be stuck in traffic. Sure you have the raw potential of doing 200mph, but you won't ever get close to that because of traffic congestion. The same concept applies when we're talking about memory bandwidth. That being said, the memory bandwidth on the omap 4460 is 6.4GB/s, the exynos 4210 is 6.4GB/s, the iphone 4s is 6.4GB/s, and the Tegra 2 is 2.5 GB/s. Add all of this with the fact that the TI processor is underclocked to 1.2ghz (for power savings) as opposed to running at full strength and full power (ie. Galaxy S2), you have what is in my opinion the superior processor. Personally, I'd rather have an underclocked processor that delivers the same or better performance and saves me power, than to have a gpu that has excessive power that I can't even make use of. It's kind of like saying you have a rocket launcher for self defense, sure the rocket launcher is powerful but it isn't something you can really make use of. In closing I think AnandTech said it best when they said "Until Tegra 3 and Krait show up, the CPU side of the 4460 is as good as it gets."
Sources:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/productInfo.do?fmly_id=844&partnum=Exynos 4210
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2911
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...mA2j6n&sig=AHIEtbTE8LvpHXPUcE4w_wGU5apdbGD0Eg
http://armdevices.net/2011/10/26/interview-with-the-texas-instruments-omap4-team/
https://plus.google.com/105051985738280261832/posts/2FXDCz8x93s
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Why-...Galaxy-Nexus-Android-ICS-poster-child_id23089
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5133/galaxy-nexus-ice-cream-sandwich-initial-performance
Nice post!
Gave me some more insight in the decision for the Omap processor and makes me feel i made a real good decision ordering the GN.
Maybe some paragraphs in your text would be nice, to make it easier to read.
Kind regards.
Thanks, now I feel even better for chosing my Nexus....
wow that was very informative. all that confusion the past couple of months about why the g-nex would be using the TI OMAP 4460 instead of, what was believed to be more powerful processors like the Exynos. but this post really cleared that up for me.
thanks!
Thanks !! Nice and simple.
Woah, huge walloftext.jpg
Anyway, hate to break it to you, but the processors in Galaxy Nexus are 4460, but they're probably binned 1.5ghz processors i.e. processors that couldn't run at the full 1.5ghz
https://twitter.com/#!/coolbho3k/status/140218721774997504
https://twitter.com/#!/coolbho3k/status/140214089183010819
Oh, and this: https://plus.google.com/105051985738280261832/posts
Galaxy Nexus runs at significantly higher res than Galaxy S II, and has to push many many more pixels...
Rawat said:
Woah, huge walloftext.jpg
Anyway, hate to break it to you, but the processors in Galaxy Nexus are 4460, but they're probably binned 1.5ghz processors i.e. processors that couldn't run at the full 1.5ghz
https://twitter.com/#!/coolbho3k/status/140218721774997504
https://twitter.com/#!/coolbho3k/status/140214089183010819
Oh, and this: https://plus.google.com/105051985738280261832/posts
Galaxy Nexus runs at significantly higher res than Galaxy S II, and has to push many many more pixels...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're missing my point. Yes the full speed potential of the 4460 chip is 1.5ghz, but it is clocked at 1.2ghz. Whether or not you will be able to clock the chip back up to 1.5 isn't what I'm getting at. The point is it has comparable processing power at a lower clock speed that it is spec'ed at. Meaning it can give comparable processing power as it's competitors but use less power, which obviously is a good thing. As for your last statement, you do realize that person you linked to is one of the sources I cited . The fact that so many more pixels have to be pushed is exactly why having more memory bandwidth is so important. Had they gone with an exynos processor clocked at 1.2 instead, there's a chance the user experience may have suffered. Think about this, the galaxy not has the exynos, but they had to clock it to 1.5 (instead of the 1.2) AND give it a 2500mah battery so that it can get decent battery life. Obviously they wouldn't be able to fit a battery of that capacity (or even close to it) in the galaxy nexus, so if they put a exynos in the nexus clocked that high, there would be a serious battery problem...and if they put a 1.2 in there with the lower memory bandwidth, there could also be a potential for user experience issues. The overall point that I'm making is that the 4460 is actually a very good chip due to the high memory bandwidth and the fact that it's more power efficient.
"More power efficient"
More power efficient than what? Exynos is pretty power efficient itself, and Note doesn't have such a large battery to counter the clock speed of Exynos, it's because it's a huge fricking phone, and they can fit it inside.
OMAP4460 is rather decidedly the 3rd best smartphone SoC in the market. A5 and Exynos are ahead (well, not CPU on a5, but GPU more than makes up for it) but it's better than Tegra2, and snapdragon. At least that's something, eh?
Awsome! Well explained, thank you, make sticky please!
Sent from my X10i using xda premium
Rawat said:
"More power efficient"
More power efficient than what? Exynos is pretty power efficient itself, and Note doesn't have such a large battery to counter the clock speed of Exynos, it's because it's a huge fricking phone, and they can fit it inside.
OMAP4460 is rather decidedly the 3rd best smartphone SoC in the market. A5 and Exynos are ahead (well, not CPU on a5, but GPU more than makes up for it) but it's better than Tegra2, and snapdragon. At least that's something, eh?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will keep my response to you brief, since it's obvious you didn't read what I posted (judging from the fact that you posted link to the same person that I already had a link to in my sources). That being said, explain why the Exynos and the A5 are ahead. Instead of making a generalized please use some facts to support what you state. If that is what you think, I'd love to read why.
Rawat said:
Anyway, hate to break it to you, but the processors in Galaxy Nexus are 4460, but they're probably binned 1.5ghz processors i.e. processors that couldn't run at the full 1.5ghz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hate to tell you this, but if it is indeed a 4460, these are 1.5 GHz parts. Plain and simple, if they weren't they would have a wildly different part number (think of Intel CPU's...the new I7 39xx series are binned Xeon parts...) than the one shown in the pictures or on the IC's themselves. Why? To put it bluntly, false advertisement. Every single thing online states 1.5 GHz for the part. No literature (that I can find) says anything less than that. And yes, I know a few things have the wording 'up to', but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a 1.5 GHz part. It just isn't rated for higher than 1.5 GHz. It's similar to how Apple clocks the A5 down to 800 MHz for the Iphone 4S. Get some power savings at the price of a small bit of performance. Does this mean that the A5's in the Iphone 4s can't do 1 GHz? Probably not.
Got proof of the accused binning? Then maybe I'll start considering that belief. But until I see 'real' proof, I highly doubt that TI is selling binned parts that can't make 1.5 GHz. That would kind of be pointless to say the 4460 is a 1.5 GHz part, but sell it with a max of 1.2 GHz without atleast changing the part number in some way (ie 4450 for instance).
mysterioustko said:
I think you're missing my point. Yes the full speed potential of the 4460 chip is 1.5ghz, but it is clocked at 1.2ghz. Whether or not you will be able to clock the chip back up to 1.5 isn't what I'm getting at. The point is it has comparable processing power at a lower clock speed that it is spec'ed at. Meaning it can give comparable processing power as it's competitors but use less power, which obviously is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is faulty reasoning. You are claiming that because the OMAP4460 in the GN is underclocked from 1.5GHz to 1.2GHz, it must consume less power than a Exynos 4210 clocked at 1.2GHz. This is only true if the OMAP4460 at 1.5GHz consumes the same amount of power as the Exynos 4210 at 1.2GHz. But we have no evidence that this is the case. The OMAP4460 at 1.5GHz might simply have a higher thermal envelope than the Exynos 4210 at 1.2GHz and is able to draw more power. Thus the OMAP4460 at 1.2GHz might consume power comparable to the Exynos 4210.
darkhawkff said:
Hate to tell you this, but if it is indeed a 4460, these are 1.5 GHz parts. Plain and simple, if they weren't they would have a wildly different part number (think of Intel CPU's...the new I7 39xx series are binned Xeon parts...) than the one shown in the pictures or on the IC's themselves. Why? To put it bluntly, false advertisement. Every single thing online states 1.5 GHz for the part. No literature (that I can find) says anything less than that. And yes, I know a few things have the wording 'up to', but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a 1.5 GHz part. It just isn't rated for higher than 1.5 GHz. It's similar to how Apple clocks the A5 down to 800 MHz for the Iphone 4S. Get some power savings at the price of a small bit of performance. Does this mean that the A5's in the Iphone 4s can't do 1 GHz? Probably not.
Got proof of the accused binning? Then maybe I'll start considering that belief. But until I see 'real' proof, I highly doubt that TI is selling binned parts that can't make 1.5 GHz. That would kind of be pointless to say the 4460 is a 1.5 GHz part, but sell it with a max of 1.2 GHz without atleast changing the part number in some way (ie 4450 for instance).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the kernel code of the Galaxy Nexus arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c:
Code:
if (cpu_is_omap446x()) {
si_type =
read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1);
switch ((si_type & (3 << 16)) >> 16) {
case 2:
/* High performance device */
omap4_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ;
omap4_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
break;
case 1:
default:
/* Standard device */
omap4_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
break;
}
}
There appears to be something in the OMAP hardware that designates whether it is a "high performance device" or a "standard device". A standard device can only operate at 1.2GHz, not 1.5GHz. It is unclear if "device" here refers to the SoC or the phone. If it refers to the SoC, then it would suggest that the SoCs are binned into high and low performance categories, with the low performance devices incapable of performing at 1.5GHz.
But here's some preliminary evidence that the SoC itself may be missing something that's required for 1.5GHz to work: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=19931580&postcount=97
mysterioustko said:
That being said, the memory bandwidth on the omap 4460 is 7.5GB/s the exynos 4210 is 6.4GB/s, and the Tegra 2 is a mere 2.5 GB/s.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where are you getting that the memory bandwidth of the OMAP 4460 is 7.5GB/s? The Galaxy Nexus uses the Samsung K3PE7E700M-XGC1 1GB memory package, which is a 400MHz, LPDDR2, 32-bit dual-channel memory package. This means it has a memory bandwidth of 400 * 2 (for DDR) * 32 * 2 (for dual-channel) = 51200Mb/s = 6.4GB/s, same as the Exynos 4210.
See: http://www.samsung.com/us/business/oem-solutions/pdfs/PSG2011_web.pdf for details on the memory package used in the GN.
mysterioustko said:
I will keep my response to you brief, since it's obvious you didn't read what I posted (judging from the fact that you posted link to the same person that I already had a link to in my sources). That being said, explain why the Exynos and the A5 are ahead. Instead of making a generalized please use some facts to support what you state. If that is what you think, I'd love to read why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually read your whole post, but skipped over reading the sources you had linked to.
A5 and Exynos are widely regarded as the 2 best SoC on the market (not including Tegra3, which just launched). Don't take my word for it, see anandtech here and here. But of course, it's hard to directly compare A5 to another (non-apple) SoC, because they run on different OSes
Rawat said:
I actually read your whole post, but skipped over reading the sources you had linked to.
A5 and Exynos are widely regarded as the 2 best SoC on the market (not including Tegra3, which just launched). Don't take my word for it, see anandtech here and here. But of course, it's hard to directly compare A5 to another (non-apple) SoC, because they run on different OSes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't care what it's "widely regarded" as. I asked for concrete information that supports what you state. You support your argument by stating that people's opinion of it is that it's best....that's not exactly a compelling argument.
I didn't read a word seeing as how it's all big one wall of text but I got the gist of it from the title. Yay my Nexus is even further ahead of the competition now than it was 20 seconds ago
mysterioustko said:
I don't care what it's "widely regarded" as. I asked for concrete information that supports what you state. You support your argument by stating that people's opinion of it is that it's best....that's not exactly a compelling argument.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clock speeds aside, the A5 is clearly a better SoC. The CPUs in all three are pretty much the same, dual-core Cortex A9s on a 45nm process. It comes down to the GPU. The A5 has a better GPU simply because it's pretty much the multicore version of the GPU in the OMAP4460. Between the OMAP4460 and the Exynos 4210, it's more difficult to say. The PowerVR540 and Mali400 have different strengths and weaknesses, so I won't speculate here.
I would also suggest that you modify your original post. It contains quite a bit of misinformation and clearly many people have read it and taken it to heart. That's not a good thing, and I hope you will do the responsible thing and try to reverse the misinformation that you've spread.
Chirality said:
Clock speeds aside, the A5 is clearly a better SoC. The CPUs in all three are pretty much the same, dual-core Cortex A9s on a 45nm process. It comes down to the GPU. The A5 has a better GPU simply because it's pretty much the multicore version of the GPU in the OMAP4460. Between the OMAP4460 and the Exynos 4210, it's more difficult to say. The PowerVR540 and Mali400 have different strengths and weaknesses, so I won't speculate here.
I would also suggest that you modify your original post. It contains quite a bit of misinformation and clearly many people have read it and taken it to heart. That's not a good thing, and I hope you will do the responsible thing and try to reverse the misinformation that you've spread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Omap vs Exynos ? The latter doesn't support HSPA+ or LTE.
Dmw017 said:
Omap vs Exynos ? The latter doesn't support HSPA+ or LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is hardly anything to do with "performance".....and not to mention that ICS is a TON more dependant on GPU renders....hardly a place it has any room to fall short.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
Dmw017 said:
Omap vs Exynos ? The latter doesn't support HSPA+ or LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exynos will do 21Mbps, HSPA+
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Chirality said:
Where are you getting that the memory bandwidth of the OMAP 4460 is 7.5GB/s? The Galaxy Nexus uses the Samsung K3PE7E700M-XGC1 1GB memory package, which is a 400MHz, LPDDR2, 32-bit dual-channel memory package. This means it has a memory bandwidth of 400 * 2 (for DDR) * 32 * 2 (for dual-channel) = 51200Mb/s = 6.4GB/s, same as the Exynos 4210.
See: http://www.samsung.com/us/business/oem-solutions/pdfs/PSG2011_web.pdf for details on the memory package used in the GN.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct, I mistakenly read the the 4470's bandwidth when researching the 4460 (the 4470's bandwidth was referenced in the same TI interview where they discussed the 4460).
I felt like once phones hit the 1 ghz mark the cpu race kicked into over drive....the dual core phase was short lived and just about old news with quad core phones hitting shelves. Is there anything left after quad core phones? Will this be standard for awhile? I just hope its not a gimmick. Like the whole 4g deal....especially LTE....i still dont feel like the benefit of the slight boost in data transfer is worth the crappy battery life. Hspa+ seems to be a good sweet spot for data transfer.... and instead of improving networks and creating quality broadband services companies waste millions on trying to be the company with the latest inadequate tech. Most people dont even understand what they have or what they are using....if only i had a dollar for everytime i heard....."i love my iphone 4g"
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
I don't know, but as I can't see how there would enough multi-tasking to make more than four cores worth sacrificing features, I would love to see improvements in battery life instead.
Doesn't Moore's law apply to more than just processing speed? Like, we could see improvements in cost, speed, or energy efficiency, but we just keep going for speed? Because I'd really love to have double the battery life.
I doubt that they will be the standard for a while. Look at how amazing the HTC ONE S is performing compared to the ONE X and the transformer prime.
I think that the dual core still has a lot of life in it. Quad core phones may be in all the flagship phones pretty soon, but I don't think that they will be "standard" for quite some time.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA
I hope so.....id rather have a high performance dual core than quad.....unless quad core phones will start flying planes
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Don't worry about core counts. Just worry about overall performance.
Quad core is a meaningless number of cores.
Quad-Cores will remain flagship for at least another year. I predict the 2014 standard for lower-end phones will be quad-core. Dual-Core won't die out, however, because of low-power consumption and prices. Most changes we will likely see in the coming years:
1. Size (Probably a move to smaller 10nm chipsets, thinner screens and phones, Larger displays)
2. Optimization of Current Technologies (Software improvements, thinner AMOLEDS, power consumption)
3. BATTERY IMPROVEMENTS (It's needed the MOST)
Quad-Core phones will be short lived. Right now quad core chips are based on Cortex A9, Cortex A16 is around the corner. The A16 dual-core chips perform faster than current quad core chips and will use much less power than Cortex A9 dual cores we have now. Due to the initial expensive production costs of the A16 it will be a while before we see A16 quads hit the market.
Edit: Of course cheap phones may use the old cheaper Quad Core Cortex A9 in their phones but by no means will it be the flagship thing to have in a phone, just standard like the 1 GHz processors have become.
theherodrownd said:
Quad-Core phones will be short lived. Right now quad core chips are based on Cortex A9, Cortex A16 is around the corner. The A16 dual-core chips perform faster than current quad core batteries and will use much less power than Cortex A9 dual cores we have now. Due to the initial expensive production costs of the A16 it will be a while before we see A16 quads hit the market.
Edit: Of course cheap phones may use the old cheaper Quad Core Cortex A9 in their phones but by no means will it be the flagship thing to have in a phone, just standard like the 1 GHz processors have become.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tegra 3 has 2 A15's bro.
Smokeey said:
Tegra 3 has 2 A15's bro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tegra 3 has 1.4 GHz Quad-Core ARM Cortex-A9s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A9_MPCore
Smokeey said:
Tegra 3 has 2 A15's bro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You sure? I looked a few places to check and saw it is still based on A9. Seems to be stamped on the same 40nm dye as the Tegra2. Its ghost core seems to have a different architecture however.
Edit: Valynor posted one of the links I was reading, thanks!
Valynor said:
Tegra 3 has 1.4 GHz Quad-Core ARM Cortex-A9s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A9_MPCore
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The next generation (Wayne) has 2 A9 and 2 A15 (est. Q4-Q1 13 release).
More efficient cores seems to be what people really want vs more cores. Along those lines, battery life is more a concern than just raw computing power.
I'm waiting to see what next gen processors bring rather than focusing on if it is quad core or not.
systemf said:
More efficient cores seems to be what people really want vs more cores. Along those lines, battery life is more a concern than just raw computing power.
I'm waiting to see what next gen processors bring rather than focusing on if it is quad core or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely, definitely too early. I mean it's cool and all but QUAD CORE on a phone right now really? If we keep going this fast we will have 16 cores by 2014. But in all seriousness google and oems should just focus on battery life improvements, software, skins like sense and touchwiz refinements and user experience. Once those things are perfected you can bring new crazy features that would require a quad core powerhouse but for now it really is not needed. Just upgrade the current dual core architecture to A15 based SoC.
Someday:thumbup:
Sent from my i9250 [GSM) Galaxy Nexus
Gnex has 1.2ghz dual core cortex a9 ti omap 1gb ram Powervrsgx540, 720p hd display
is the specs of the Gnex better than 1.2ghz quad core cortex a7 mediatek 1gb ram powervrsgx544,720p display
From the benchmark perspective, no it's not. Dual A9's usually equal to quad A7's in CPU power, while SGX544MP1 is obviously superior to SGX540. However, the bloatware those small manufacturers tend to put in those MTK devices will obviously slow the phone down. Words around the internet also say that although MT6589 is a quad A7 CPU, only 2 cores are used per normal task.
I suppose you're gonna buy a device - don't buy MTKs, there's usually no development for them, they may never get future Android upgrades even via flashing (because there's no custom ROM at all), meaning that your phone could be dead on arrival. Personal opinion so feel free to oppose.
Sent from Google Nexus 4 @ CM10.2
The galaxy tab s products that are available to me have an octa-core processor, with the high speed cores being 1.9ghz. I can't really understand why Samsung chose to use that instead of a 2.3ghz quad-core like in the tab pro.
See Wikipedia for an explanation of the concept: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_...multi-processing_.28global_task_scheduling.29
Because the Exynos 5 Octa-core is the one processor that Samsung has to be able to compete with Snapdragon 800, and is cheaper to implement since it's their own processor. I don't buy the Octa-core hype, I'd be happier with the Snapdragon 800 honestly like on the Tab PRO 8.4.
The question is:
Does TAB S use the 8 cores at the same time?
It seams it does NOT, little cores are only used when low power is required..
So performance wise, this CPU is slower than SD 800
ssuper2k said:
The question is:
Does TAB S use the 8 cores at the same time?
It seams it does NOT, little cores are only used when low power is required..
So performance wise, this CPU is slower than SD 800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet I am getting 35,300 on Antutu using Shaheers t800 rom which is higher than any other current tablet or phone. (Shaheer's rom should go out of beta today - don't flash until final has been posted).
The Tab Pro 8.4 Antutu is 32,806.
I CANT PLAY NOVA 3 with exynos !
AND GAMING IS NOT SO SMOOTH ! STILL A BIT LAGGY
I can see the argument that you don't always need full power, thus the four slow cores, but since all cores can't run at once, it seems a cheat to have 1.9ghz as the top speed for the faster four cores. Since, or at least I assume, cores step up and down as needed, it seems to me a snapdragon 800 or higher at 2.3ghz or higher would have been just fine. I mean, if you are going to put in 3gb of RAM, then you should put in a great cpu also and not pretend less (1.9ghz) is a better contribution to what is supposed to be a premium tablet.
And yet I don't think samsung is doing enough to utilizing this hardware capability. In theory it should run at least 4x faster and 6x more effecient then the snap dragon and apple current A8 chip. It has failed to outshine the competitors because samsung software department sucks. Samsung hardware is still great though.
sku|| said:
I CANT PLAY NOVA 3 with exynos !
AND GAMING IS NOT SO SMOOTH ! STILL A BIT LAGGY
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Blame the developer for not making it compatible. Tegra powered Htc one x is incompatible too so not sure that is exynos issue..
i wish my t805 had Full HD screen resolution :cyclops:
Funny. Was just browsing the web a bit on my i5 ultrabook and it occurred to me that the browser on my Tab S is actually faster. If gaming is your primary thing, I'd buy the Nvidia Shield, not the Tab S. This tablet is designed for eye candy media consumption (internet and video) not for gaming enthusiasts. Try running your PC video card at 2560 x 1600 on ultra and see what you get.
i had heard from a Samsung rep i actually enjoy talking to that Sammy had just figured the all cores at once and we should see updates that turn that feature on. when this will happen who knows. i also did not ask him for a link and now cant find that info on the web so when i see him again soon i will get more info.
i would assume (insert you know what that means) that when/if this happens the full power of this setup would greatly improve?
anyway i have had my Tab S running snappy for me and no complaints at this time
You cannot compare the clock speeds from two different processors. For instance, you can't compare the 1.9GHz quad-core of the Exynos to the 2.3GHz quad-core of the Snapdragon 800. This doesn't mean anything. If you compare the clock speed of two Snapdragon chips, that's ok, or if you compare the clock speed of two Exynos chips, then that's ok too. Comparing the clock speed of an Intel chip against the clock speed of an AMD chip, is the same as comparing the clock speed of an Exynos chip to the clock speed of a Snapdragon chip.
The Exynos chip in this tablet has been shown to compete very well/close with the Snapdragon on every level except GPU. The Mali GPU in this chip just doesn't match the Adreno GPU from the Snapdragon. However, the RAM is faster in the Exynos than the Snapdragon.
That said, I am a fan of the Snapdragon chip, of course. I was holding off to see if the LTE variant of this tablet would have the Snapdragon 800, but instead they shipped with an Intel LTE modem. Besides apps/games not being optimized for Exynos, I am fairly satisfied with my purchase. I'm just anxious to get CyanogenMod(or any other AOSP ROM installed on it).
fletch33 said:
i had heard from a Samsung rep i actually enjoy talking to that Sammy had just figured the all cores at once and we should see updates that turn that feature on. when this will happen who knows. i also did not ask him for a link and now cant find that info on the web so when i see him again soon i will get more info.
i would assume (insert you know what that means) that when/if this happens the full power of this setup would greatly improve?
anyway i have had my Tab S running snappy for me and no complaints at this time
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could also mean increased battery consumption,don't know. Overall I am satisfied with this Tab including battery life.
There are 3 different performace results:
a) what Exynos 520 does achieve in practice now, measured bei some benchmarks and real world performance (<= Snapdragon 800)
b) what it could do theoretically - but will never happen due to driver and scheduler etc issues (>> Snapdragon)
c) what it will do some day in near future on an optimized ROM (somewhere in between?)
Fortunately the Exynos 5420 does support all 8 cores in parallel, see here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-Exynos-5420-Octa-SoC.103633.0.html
pibach said:
There are 3 different performace results:
a) what Exynos 520 does achieve in practice now, measured bei some benchmarks and real world performance (<= Snapdragon 800)
b) what it could do theoretically - but will never happen due to driver and scheduler etc issues (>> Snapdragon)
c) what it will do some day in near future on an optimized ROM (somewhere in between?)
Fortunately the Exynos 5420 does support all 8 cores in parallel, see here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-Exynos-5420-Octa-SoC.103633.0.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wish I knew how. Probably a linux thing. ...
If it is possible to implement in today's existing source, I'm sure @AndreiLux would know about it ?
UpInTheAir said:
Wish I knew how. Probably a linux thing. ...
If it is possible to implement in today's existing source, I'm sure @AndreiLux would know about it ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's impossible.
AndreiLux said:
It's impossible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What and why?
pibach said:
What and why?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.androidauthority.com/sam...ta-can-use-eight-cores-simultaneously-267316/
I've found a few articles saying it should support it, then a couple Deva saying they had to goto the 5422 for a working implementation of HMP.
Here is a post from odroid
http://forum.odroid.com/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=5651
That's weird. The (newer) 5422 supports HMP but not 3gb RAM.
What about PowerVR 6200 GPU vs Adreno 430?
A good question!
What's actually inside these processors...
Can't post outside link... Its (8) a53 processors clocked at 2.0ghz w/ powervr 6200
The 810 being (4)a53/(4)a57 big.LITTLE combo.
Long story short geekbench says the mediatek wins in multicore barely, but is smashed in single core, because it's a true octacore, but just a midrange one severely overclocked, with last generations gpu running the blinky flashy show.
this is all based on mt6795 not sure what the (t) means...
atomikpunx said:
What's actually inside these processors...
Can't post outside link... Its (8) a53 processors clocked at 2.0ghz w/ powervr 6200
The 810 being (4)a53/(4)a57 big.LITTLE combo.
Long story short geekbench says the mediatek wins in multicore barely, but is smashed in single core, because it's a true octacore, but just a midrange one severely overclocked, with last generations gpu running the blinky flashy show.
this is all based on mt6795 not sure what the (t) means...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, what does this mean in real world use?
Sharpshooterrr said:
So, what does this mean in real world use?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last mediatek proccesors trully provide smoothness, the MTK6795T is just a flashy overclocked MTK6795, yes, it beats the SD810, even the snapdragron 805 beats the 810 in some devices, maybe is because the 810 throttles himself to the oblivion.
MediaTek SOC's are known to have crap embedded security.
Additionally if you think about the ways in which the big.LITTLE architecture works it makes a lot more logical sense than a makeup of 8 cores in a true octa-core setup.
M9+ is out, so we'll see