Related
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
Hi
Which is better? Tegra3 or Mali 400
I don't know mate, this is what my phone after the update is capable of now.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Well it will be a race for sure
Mali might be faster (or maybe not), but Tegra 3 definitely better. Because it has better, enhanced games. Developers develop for Tegra. They don't develop for Mali or Adreno.
One guy complained that Shadowgun looks better on my phone than on his iPad3 - I had to explain that I'm running THD version, that we have those Tegra enhanced games. That makes a difference.
Tegra 3 will run all games. Adreno/Mali will require Chainfire3D with plugins to run Tegra games.
Thats my view on that.
The Mali 400 is old now, it`s not what the sg3 is getting surely.
John.
Even if SGS3 will get Mali T-604, I will stick with Tegra 3 for now. Unless I see games dedicated for T-604, and more than just one.
more...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/20/galaxy-s-iii-leak/
according to this it will have the 400
antipesto93 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/20/galaxy-s-iii-leak/
according to this it will have the 400
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't notice it mention 400. But if true people would find it disappointing, even that 400 is still serious piece of hardware. Given 720p screen, performance would be worse compared to SGS2.
The Mali's performance is the same as the Tegra 3's in graphics benchmarks I've done on my Note Vs my Prime and my One X (just goes to show how average the Tegra 3 GPU really is I think, no better than something at least 6 months older). Disappointing it's not the upgraded GPU if that is accurate, but doesn't differentiate the products at all.
Tinderbox (UK) said:
The Mali 400 is old now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically, so is Teg3. S4 uses 28nm and the 4212 uses 32nm. Teg3 is two 45nm A9 chips glommed together because Nvidia wanted to be first to market with a next-gen chip. It's the least advanced of any of the three SoCs. From a GPU perspective none of the three really move the ball forward and are just evolutionary vs. revolutionary. If I had to guess best overall performance I’d say 4212, Teg3, and S4 in that order. Because S4 and the 4212 are on smaller dies they’ll be more efficient and handily beat Teg3 at battery life (except maybe at idle).
delete post.
BarryH_GEG said:
Technically, so is Teg3. S4 uses 28nm and the 4212 uses 32nm. Teg3 is two 45nm A9 chips glommed together because Nvidia wanted to be first to market with a next-gen chip. It's the least advanced of any of the three SoCs. From a GPU perspective none of the three really move the ball forward and are just evolutionary vs. revolutionary. If I had to guess best overall performance I’d say 4212, Teg3, and S4 in that order. Because S4 and the 4212 are on smaller dies they’ll be more efficient and handily beat Teg3 at battery life (except maybe at idle).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
tegra3 is actually made on the 40nm. nvidia still has tsmc's 40nm process and is migrating towards 28nm with desktop GPUs and will eventually migrate to 28nm with the tegra3+.
i hate how people always say that its a bad thing that apple didn`t upgrade the gpu but fust added more cores or samsung didn`t change the mali 400 gpu. the fact is that the mali and sgx543mp2 were ahead when they were released. now there is actual competition like the adreno 320 and tegra 3/4. a simple overclocked sgx or mali chip is enough to keep up with the competition.
NZtechfreak said:
The Mali's performance is the same as the Tegra 3's in graphics benchmarks I've done on my Note Vs my Prime and my One X (just goes to show how average the Tegra 3 GPU really is I think, no better than something at least 6 months older). Disappointing it's not the upgraded GPU if that is accurate, but doesn't differentiate the products at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mali 400/450 is a 2nd generation GPU like tegra 2, only 44 millions polygons/sec, My Adreno 205 is 41 millions & The Tegra 3 is 129 millions.
Gameloft games in the end of 2012 will need 100 millions...
The Mali 3rd generation is Mali T-604/640 & Mali say that's it is 500% the performances of previous Mali GPU's :
http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-t604.php
500% is using quad-core optimised applis (only tegra 3 will have it in less than 2 years) but it's 250% in dual-core...
As Tegra 3 is equal to T-604, Mali 400 is pawned...
-1st gen (Adreno 200, mali 200/300, SGX Power VR 520/530 & tegra 1)
-2nd gen (Adreno 205, Mali 400MP/450MP, SGX Power VR 540/554 & tegra 2)
-3rd gen (Adreno 220/225/320, Mali T604/640, SGX Power VR G 6200/6430 & Tegra 3)
Sekhen said:
Mali 400/450 is a 2nd generation GPU like tegra 2, only 44 millions polygons/sec, My Adreno 205 is 41 millions & The Tegra 3 is 129 millions.
Gameloft games in the end of 2012 will need 100 millions...
The Mali 3rd generation is Mali T-604/640 & Mali say that's it is 500% the performances of previous Mali GPU's :
http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-t604.php
500% is using quad-core optimised applis (only tegra 3 will have it in less than 2 years) but it's 250% in dual-core...
As Tegra 3 is equal to T-604, Mali 400 is pawned...
-1st gen (Adreno 200, mali 200/300, SGX Power VR 520/530 & tegra 1)
-2nd gen (Adreno 205, Mali 400MP/450MP, SGX Power VR 540/554 & tegra 2)
-3rd gen (Adreno 220/225/320, Mali T604/640, SGX Power VR G 6200/6430 & Tegra 3)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
link to your numbers about Tegra 3?
I have not used any device with Mali 400. Sorry mate~~
I think that tegra 3 is better but we have to attend the 3.x kernel to solve the battery problem properly.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
Mali-400 is good and strong and Tegra 3 might not be the fastest one there is, but it's the only one that gets best looking games. On top of that, Tegra 3 Plus is coming soon and then next year another one with direct x and supposed console-like performance. See what Nvidia does for desktops and just hope they keep the pace with mobile GPU and we will get there too. I don't really consider non-tegra device unless it amazes me with noticeably better power efficiency or optimized games start coming out for it.
Would you buy non-nvidia and non-ati graphics card for your pc?
schriss said:
Mali-400 is good and strong and Tegra 3 might not be the fastest one there is, but it's the only one that gets best looking games. On top of that, Tegra 3 Plus is coming soon and then next year another one with direct x and supposed console-like performance. See what Nvidia does for desktops and just hope they keep the pace with mobile GPU and we will get there too. I don't really consider non-tegra device unless it amazes me with noticeably better power efficiency or optimized games start coming out for it.
Would you buy non-nvidia and non-ati graphics card for your pc?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly!
Given the choice, I would buy a Tegra device over anything else.
Is power vr g6430 any good when campared to adreno gpu's?
http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_5s_vs_lg_g2_vs_nokia_lumia_1020-review-997p5.php
The same GPU used on iPhone 5s. Based on this benchmark, it's better than Adreno 330 I think.
Adreno 405 isn't top class GPU. According to GFLOPS numbers, 405 is better than 1st gen Adreno 320 (S4 Pro, S4 Prime) and weaker 2nd gen.
But all about benchmarks, the most important is user experience and last but not least is optimization
GrandpaaOvekill said:
Is power vr g6430 any good when campared to adreno gpu's?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Adreno 405 is only half as power of powervgr g6430
Adreno 405 is middle range gpu
While powervgr g6430, adreno 320, 330, 420 are last year and current flagship gpu
Gpu mostly rated by gflops
http://kyokojap.myweb.hinet.net/gpu_gflops/
And adreno each generation have basic, mid, high power gpu..
Adreno 405 is 4th generation (05 means basic) and can match 3rd Gen mid
Adreno 420 is 4th generation (20 is mid) and can match 3rd Gen high gpu
See gflops of each in that above link
And yes optimization is the most for gaming
The PowerVR G6430 in Zenfone 2 is clocked higher than iphone 5s but lower than ipads and Atom 3570. Its performance is between the Adreno 330 and 430 which is excellent given that it was designed in 2012 and released in 2013. Reclocking it at 640Mhz like its 3570 brother should give a nice run for its price, still technically, it won't be as fast as Adreno 430. However, in real world usage and coupled with a more powerful Intel cpu, it should match it as the CPU is able to extract more GPU power.
If you are really looking at the most powerful mobile GPU, the Nvidia Tegra X1 is at the top, close to twice the performance of the top Qualcomm 810 GPU, Adreno 430. In Antutu, it only scores 75K because the CPU is slower than others like Intel. 75K is still unbreakeable for the moment. Surely, Nvidia and ATI have much more experience in the GPU domain so its not surprising that they are the fastest.
Now, only if ATI partner with Intel to provide us with 14nm goodies :angel:
p.s: To have a broader picture, the Tegra X1 chip is close to twice the performance of a PS3 which is astonishing considering its small size and 2W max power consumption.
Nvidia Shield TV based on Tegra X1 has active cooling system.
So, how it can be compared to phone SoCs?
My bad, I though it was found in the Nvidia Shield tablet. Its its brother the Kepler K1 that is currently used but still at 365 GFlops on nvidia website, it competes with the adreno 430. Note that the PS3 was 192 GFlops.
Interesting fact is that the Tegra X1 actually draws much Less power at idle and slightly less power (1w less than Kepler) at load. Kepler would peak at 11w. Thanks to the new 20nm tech in Maxwell cores efficiency. The Nvidia TV Shield has much more and larger components to power, its also for sure clocked higher.
''According to Nvidia, the power consumption in a tablet powered by Tegra X1 will be on par with Tegra K1. In fact, idle power consumption will be even lower thanks to the various architecture improvements. Tegra K1 was designed to operate at around 5-8 watts, with infrequent peaks up to 11 watts when running stressful benchmarks, so the X1 will be well within the realm of tablet power requirements.'' Source: greenbot.com
Heres this too: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/NVIDIA-Announces-Tegra-X1-Maxwell-Hits-Ultra-Low-Power
I really like the fact that PC manifacturers enter the mobile market, after all, they were building computer components for ages. This will open the door to more powerfull and cheaper SoCs especially because they have the ability to mass produce and develop the latest tech with many factory plants worldwide.
aziz07 said:
My bad, I though it was found in the Nvidia Shield tablet. Its its brother the Kepler K1 that is currently used but still at 365 GFlops on nvidia website, it competes with the adreno 430. Note that the PS3 was 192 GFlops.
Interesting fact is that the Tegra X1 actually draws much Less power at idle and slightly less power (1w less than Kepler) at load. Kepler would peak at 11w. Thanks to the new 20nm tech in Maxwell cores efficiency. The Nvidia TV Shield has much more and larger components to power, its also for sure clocked higher.
''According to Nvidia, the power consumption in a tablet powered by Tegra X1 will be on par with Tegra K1. In fact, idle power consumption will be even lower thanks to the various architecture improvements. Tegra K1 was designed to operate at around 5-8 watts, with infrequent peaks up to 11 watts when running stressful benchmarks, so the X1 will be well within the realm of tablet power requirements.'' Source: greenbot.com
Heres this too: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/NVIDIA-Announces-Tegra-X1-Maxwell-Hits-Ultra-Low-Power
I really like the fact that PC manifacturers enter the mobile market, after all, they were building computer components for ages. This will open the door to more powerfull and cheaper SoCs especially because they have the ability to mass produce and develop the latest tech with many factory plants worldwide.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maxwell can very power hungry when you clock it all the way up, and X1 has more CUDA cores than K1. X1 has 2 SMM with 256 total while K1 only has 1 SMX with 192.
also, pc manufacturers have always been in the mobile market, or you could even say they started the mobile market. for instance, Apple was a pc manufacturer, steve jobs dedicated 70% of his life to PC rather than phones. samsung makes everything and they have a lot of experience too in making notebooks. so the two most powerful (or most successful) players in the mobile sector are also pc manufacturers, what do you mean by pc manufacturers entering the mobile market?
Its getting off topic but Intel or Apple weren't the first one to build a cell phone. Intel was the first company to build a CPU though. Motorola built the 1st cellphone.
On a sidenote, Apple never really built anything except for aesthetics, it started with IBM building for them after non-success with Synertek for a couple of months. Btw, Samsung does not manifacture PC CPUs or GPUs. Only CPU they build is the Exynos for mobile. I think you misinterpreted the fact the they sell laptops, yes they do, but they are not the one building its major components, its Intel and AMD. They may build its memory components but not CPU or GPU.
You are seeing technology the other way around. If we take, let say, a 2 years old gpu and a new one. The new one can have double the transitor and components count yet still consume less power. Its about architechture efficiency and transistor nm. e.g. the Intel in our Zenfone 2 is built with 3D 22nm transistor which is more power efficient. That's how tech flow.
Anyway, apple is slowly declining, Intel is building their PC segment, replacing IBM, and Samsung is building their next iphone and taking care of the mobile segment. We can already see whats next.
I have been building PCs for over 15 years, its my hobby.
@ mods There should be a ''resolved'' button just like other forums so threads don't get cluttered lol
GrandpaaOvekill said:
Is power vr g6430 any good when campared to adreno gpu's?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know benchmarks aren't everything, but GFX gives a good idea of the performance difference between the two. Basically, the PowerVR G6430 is much more powerful than the Adreno 405.
PowerVR G6430:
https://gfxbench.com/result.jsp?ben...VR Rogue G6430&base=device&ff-check-desktop=0
Adreno 405:
https://gfxbench.com/result.jsp?ben...ter=Adreno 405&base=device&ff-check-desktop=0
Here's some videos of a Zenfone 2 with a phone that utilizes the SD 615/Adreno 405 combo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3DcRHXrTHg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYZr53U2Tfk
Hope this helps.
We've had plenty of information about the design of the iPhone 7. But its power, why? Recently A10 processor of the iPhone appeared on page 7 above Geekbench test mononuclear performance, the results show it on par with Apple A9X network.
A10 chip production is expected to follow the process of TSMC 16nmFinFET. Based on the numbers on the chart, you can see the performance of Apple's single-core A9 A10 about 20% higher, and almost on par with A9X being used on two versions of the iPad Pro, as well as the most powerful processor Apple at the moment.
Compared with previous generations, the A10 does not have the power jump, formerly the A9 launched, it really is a big step forward compared to the Apple A8. Anyhow with performance on par with mononuclear A9X, the A10 chip also really strong, unknown multicore performance of it will be.
Also rumored that the A10 will apply the method of "fan-out" to reduce the size of the chip. Due to the 16nm manufacturing process, so many people are hoping that the ability of the A10 power consumption will be lower than previous generation
Besides, a popular Weibo account about giving information of the mobile processor has said that A10 is still a dual-core chip with a single-core performance strong.
Apple iPhone 7 is said to be launched in September, and there are at least two versions, of which the premium version will be equipped with dual cameras. TECHRUM will continuously update information about the smartphone, this is an eagerly anticipated.
source: Techrum.vn
AMD has managed to become a solid competitor in the gaming CPU space. The latest Ryzen 5000 series processors based on the Zen3 architecture are becoming the go-to choice for a lot of gamers around the world. The biggest advantage that the new Ryzen series offers over Intel is power efficiency. In fact, even the last-generation Ryzen 3000 series processors, have proven to offer rock-solid performance with comparatively less power draw. Intel recently launched its new 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop processors, however, it hasn't received a lot of positive feedback primarily due to the fact that the company continues to drag its 14nm++ process.
If you are in the market for buying a new CPU for gaming, then AMD is a pretty good choice. Let's check out the best AMD CPUs for gaming that you should buy today.
AMD Ryzen 5 5600XThe newly launched Ryzen 5 5600X is the best AMD Ryzen CPU that you should buy for gaming in 2021. It offers the best performance to value ratio and thanks to AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, it draws less power compared to Intel counterparts. The processor is highly recommended for all sorts of games, whether you want fast frame rates or a high-resolution experience.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz – 4.6GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
35MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
65W TDP
~$279
Buy from Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 5800XThe new octa-core champion, the Ryzen 7 5800X takes on Intel's new 11th-gen Core i9-11900K. While both offer almost similar performance, AMD is selling the 5800X at over $100 less than Intel. That in itself is a huge point to consider, especially since the chipset crisis has lead to consumers hunting for products left, right, and center. Additionally, as mentioned with the case of the 5600X, this one also draws comparatively less power thanks to the 7nm processor.
Clock speeds: 3.8GHz – 4.7GHz
8-Cores, 16 Threads
35MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
105W TDP
~$420
Buy from Amazon
AMD Ryzen 9 5900XThe latest top-of-the-line CPU offering from AMD in 2021, the 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X throws Intel’s latest Core i9-11900K and even the 10-core Core i9-10900K from last year, out of the park in almost every single aspect. It not only offers a better performance package, but it manages power and thermal more efficiently thanks to the 7nm process. It is currently selling more expensive than AMD’s suggested price, but it is totally worth it and should last you for years to come.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz – 4.8GHz
12-Cores, 24 Threads
64MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
105W TDP
~$549
Buy from Amazon
Best APU: AMD Ryzen 5 3400GThe chipset crisis continues to haunt us, with most gamers unable to get a hold of a new GPU. But if you are planning to build a budget gaming PC, then you should consider the Ryzen 5 3400G. Since it is an APU, it comes with integrated graphics that should be enough for 720p or 1080p gaming at low to mid settings. Additionally, both the CPU and GPU are unlocked which means there is potential for tweaking them as well. AMD has announced that its latest APUs, the Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G, will be hitting stores in August. These are going to be much better than the 3400G, so hold on to your money if you can.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz – 4.2GHz
4-Cores, 8 Threads
4MB L3 Cache
PCIe 3.0
Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics
65W TDP
~$149
Buy from Amazon
These are currently the best AMD processors for gaming, and while you might point out that there is also the Ryzen 9 5950X, that would just be overkill for a gaming rig. For a more balanced setup, it is best to either go for the Ryzen 5 5600X if your main purpose is only gaming. If you plan to do gaming alongside multiple tasks like streaming and video rendering, then get the Ryzen 7 5800X or the 5900X if your budget allows.
Recently, Ryzen 5 5600G and 5700G have better APU for now
5800X is the best for gaming giving better scores than 5600X & 1-CCX(8-core) so lowest latency.
myaccountaccess krogerfeedback