Qualcomm, iphone 64 bit just a marketing gimmick!!

No actually I have

"I know there's a lot of noise because Apple did [64-bit] on their A7," said Anand Chandrasekher, senior vice president and chief marketing officer at Qualcomm, in an interview. "I think they are doing a marketing gimmick. There's zero benefit a consumer gets from that."

of course this company always goes out on a limb and says things that are incorrect does their reputation a world of good.

I will take that over some MAC blogger I think cheers

Which part of what he's written do you not agree with? Do you think he has got someone technically wrong?

swordman · 03-10-2013, 18:51

Look back I have already spelt that out.

Where do you think he has it spot on then and Qualcomm have it wrong exactly? what is the lack of understanding regarding ram exactly?

Zack06 · 03-10-2013, 18:51

Quote:

Yes, the article clearly states there are positives and negatives. It doesn't say it is pointless or a bad move.

No, you said considering a lack of RAM showed "a lack of understanding", which is totally wrong. There's no point trying to back out of that now. You were trying to disregard its importance, despite the article stating otherwise.

kidspud · 03-10-2013, 18:57

Quote:

No, you said considering a lack of RAM showed "a lack of understanding", which is totally wrong. There's no point trying to back out of that now. You were trying to disregard its importance, despite the article stating otherwise.

I am not backing out of anything. The statement that the architecture is only effective if you have over 4gb RAM clearly shows a lack of understand based on the information in that article, and a second article I've posted.

I'm happy if you think you have a better understanding and maybe you should write a detailed response showing why.

I think the guy provided a good informative article, which doesn't appear to show any bias. He didn't just say it was a good idea and give no reason.

swordman · 03-10-2013, 18:59

From your second article

Patrick Moorhead, president and principal analyst at Moor Insights and Strategy, tells The Verge "there are no positives or negatives that 64-bits bring to the table," aside from the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM. Since its release in 2007, Apple has increased the iPhone’s RAM from 128MB to a rumored 2GB in the 5s, while Samsung’s Galaxy Note 3 recently broke the Android RAM record with 3GB. Moorhead doesn't believe the industry will "run into a 32-bit wall for three to five years." The 32-bit wall describes the point when 64-bit processors become a must: high-end computing requires a lot of RAM.

So can you tell us then why this MAC blogger is right and Qualcomm are wrong?

calico_pie · 03-10-2013, 19:01

Quote:

What exactly are the benefits beyond a minor speed bump? Most of the advantages are negligible on the limited hardware of the 5S.

A minor speed bump vs. larger app sizes, increased memory consumption and increased power consumption. The drawbacks pretty much negate any benefits. Battery life is very important on a mobile device, and many reviewers have found the 5S battery life to be sometimes weaker than its predecessor despite the significantly larger battery.

It has a small benefit against an array of disadvantages which affect the experience.

Again, the argument isn't that the benefits will be huge.

Just that it's not a pointless gimmick.

Tangible benefits may not be huge now, but surely it's going to have benefits down the line. For example developers being able to do 64 bit stuff now, so that they can hit the ground running down the line.

calico_pie · 03-10-2013, 19:01

Quote:

Look back I have already spelt that out.

Where do you think he has it spot on then and Qualcomm have it wrong exactly? what is the lack of understanding regarding ram exactly?

You haven't spelt it out at all.

I think Qualcomm have reduced it to its most simplistic, short sighted terms.

kidspud · 03-10-2013, 19:03

Quote:

Look back I have already spelt that out.

Where do you think he has it spot on then and Qualcomm have it wrong exactly? what is the lack of understanding regarding ram exactly?

I don't know whether the chief marketing officer for Qualcomm is correct as he provided no explanation for his view.

I expect he was hoping people would just latch on to his sound bite.

swordman · 03-10-2013, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Same old facts and truth yes

64 bit processors are not really any faster as of themselves so without the right environment there is no benefit in them and the iphone doesn't provide that environment.

As the proper expert says:

"Predominantly... you need it for memory addressability beyond 4GB. That's it. You don't really need it for performance".

Perhaps for the iphone 6 they can pop in a 128 bit cpu ...
I think we can put these apple claims in the same box as their "A7 brings desktop-style computing to the smartphone"

So who is this guy anyway you haven't answered.

Quote:

You haven't spelt it out at all.

I think Qualcomm have reduced it to its most simplistic, short sighted terms.

So same question as i asked KS why is this MAC blogger right and the Senior VP of Qualcomm wrong exactly?

swordman · 03-10-2013, 19:05

Quote:

I don't know whether the chief marketing officer for Qualcomm is correct as he provided no explanation for his view.

I expect he was hoping people would just latch on to his sound bite.

So has he lied?

And again can you say why this MAC blogger is right and Qualcomm and the quote from your article are both wrong. What is it according to you that they are missing that Mr hand glider has got right?

kidspud · 03-10-2013, 19:06

Quote:

From your second article

Patrick Moorhead, president and principal analyst at Moor Insights and Strategy, tells The Verge "there are no positives or negatives that 64-bits bring to the table," aside from the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM. Since its release in 2007, Apple has increased the iPhone’s RAM from 128MB to a rumored 2GB in the 5s, while Samsung’s Galaxy Note 3 recently broke the Android RAM record with 3GB. Moorhead doesn't believe the industry will "run into a 32-bit wall for three to five years." The 32-bit wall describes the point when 64-bit processors become a must: high-end computing requires a lot of RAM.

So can you tell us then why this MAC blogger is right and Qualcomm are wrong?

So shall we go round in circles and selectively quote parts of the article, or should we read the whole article

swordman · 03-10-2013, 19:07

Quote:

So shall we go round in circles and selectively quote parts of the article, or should we read the whole article

I've read it.

So for the 3rd time can you tell us why this MAC blogger is right and Qualcomm are wrong?

Zack06 · 03-10-2013, 19:07

Quote:

I am not backing out of anything. The statement that the architecture is only effective if you have over 4gb RAM clearly shows a lack of understand based on the information in that article, and a second article I've posted.

I'm happy if you think you have a better understanding and maybe you should write a detailed response showing why.

I think the guy provided a good informative article, which doesn't appear to show any bias. He didn't just say it was a good idea and give no reason.

Except that it doesn't and both articles support this notion. 64-bit IS more efficient with more RAM. There's a reason why it can address vast amounts of RAM, 64-bit Windows can address upto 192GB of RAM.

I'm just not sure that you are understanding anything that is being said. Quotes have been taken from both articles, and yet you are still trotting out this "lack of understanding" line.

Though there are some differences in ARM64, Microsoft explains 64-bit and RAM quite well:

Quote:

Most of the performance gain in computers running a 64-bit version of Windows comes from this added memory, combined with a powerful 64-bit processor able to use that extra memory.

But for most people who just keep a few programs running at a time, 4 GB or more of memory offers no tangible benefit over a computer with 2 GB of memory and a 32-bit version of Windows.

kidspud · 03-10-2013, 19:10

Quote:

So has he lied?

And again can you say why this MAC blogger is right and Qualcomm and the quote from your article are both wrong. What is it according to you that they are missing that Mr hand glider has got right?

Has he lied

are you a child

no, he had said what he thinks without providing any technical explanation.

I don't need to say why the author believes he is right (and like you I don't have the technical knowledge to do so). The writer has provided a technical explanation as to why he thinks he is right. Which part of what he has written do you not agree with?

kidspud · 03-10-2013, 19:14

Quote:

Except that it doesn't and both articles support this notion. 64-bit IS more efficient with more RAM. There's a reason why it can address vast amounts of RAM, 64-bit Windows can address upto 192GB of RAM.

I'm just not sure that you are understanding anything that is being said. Quotes have been taken from both articles, and yet you are still trotting out this "lack of understanding" line.

Though there are some differences in ARM64, Microsoft explains 64-bit and RAM quite well:

I agree the articles do detail that 64bit is more efficient with more RAM.

Unfortunately, the argument put many times in this thread is a 64bit architecture is pointless unless you have more memory, a view clearly not agreed with in the articles.

Zack06 · 03-10-2013, 19:21

Quote:

I agree the articles do detail that 64bit is more efficient with more RAM.

Unfortunately, the argument put many times in this thread is a 64bit architecture is pointless unless you have more memory, a view clearly not agreed with in the articles.

But what you fail to acknowledge, is that while it is not "pointless", the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits on current mobile hardware. I'm not sure how many times that has to be repeated before people understand.

There's no point saying "oh it's not pointless, it improves speed", when the battery drains far faster and on-board memory is eaten up quicker by the larger sized apps.

swordman · 03-10-2013, 19:28

Quote:

Has he lied

are you a child

no, he had said what he thinks without providing any technical explanation.

I don't need to say why the author believes he is right (and like you I don't have the technical knowledge to do so). The writer has provided a technical explanation as to why he thinks he is right. Which part of what he has written do you not agree with?

of course you don't as usual

So perhaps you tell tell us then who is right the MAC blogger or Qualcomm according to you?

calico_pie · 03-10-2013, 19:30

Quote:

So same question as i asked KS why is this MAC blogger right and the Senior VP of Qualcomm wrong exactly?

I already answered that.

I think Qualcomm have reduced it to its most simplistic, short sighted terms.

Funny that you accuse a writer of bias, despite his seemingly balanced and detailed write up.

But accept the far less detailed, and more short sighted, views of someone from the marketing department of a competitor, who would be bound to downplay it.

kidspud · 03-10-2013, 19:30

Quote:

But what you fail to acknowledge, is that while it is not "pointless", the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits on current mobile hardware. I'm not sure how many times that has to be repeated before people understand.

There's no point saying "oh it's not pointless, it improves speed", when the battery drains far faster and on-board memory is eaten up quicker by the larger sized apps.

I do not fail to acknowledge anything, and as I've already stated, I'm quite happy to say I have no detailed knowledge of processor architectures. However, this guy didn't just make a throwaway statement or sound bite, he backed it up with a detailed explanation.

If you disagree with that explanation and think the negatives outweighs the benefits, fine, but with all due respect (and believe me you clearly know more about this subject than some like to think they do) then have the debate with technical experts and counter their views.

kidspud · 03-10-2013, 19:33

Quote:

of course you don't as usual

So perhaps you tell tell us then who is right the MAC blogger or Qualcomm according to you?

I see you are on your normal divert

I look forward to reading your technical response. Let me know the link.

Dark 1 · 03-10-2013, 19:34

Quote:

No actually I have

"I know there's a lot of noise because Apple did [64-bit] on their A7," said Anand Chandrasekher, senior vice president and chief marketing officer at Qualcomm, in an interview. "I think they are doing a marketing gimmick. There's zero benefit a consumer gets from that."

of course this company always goes out on a limb and says things that are incorrect does their reputation a world of good.

I will take that over some MAC blogger I think cheers

Of course you will! <nudge nudge wink wink>

swordman · 03-10-2013, 19:36

Quote:

I see you are on your normal divert

I look forward to reading your technical response. Let me know the link.

So for the 5th time still no answer from you, this seems a running theme in all your thread contributions. Lots of questions not a single answer.

lets try something else then
You say you don't have the technical knowledge to answer yet your willing to believe this MAC blogger even though you admit above your knowledge. can you explain that perhaps?

calico_pie · 03-10-2013, 19:36

Quote:

But what you fail to acknowledge, is that while it is not "pointless", the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits on current mobile hardware. I'm not sure how many times that has to be repeated before people understand.

There's no point saying "oh it's not pointless, it improves speed", when the battery drains far faster and on-board memory is eaten up quicker by the larger sized apps.

So it's not pointless.

And will be worthwhile down the line, with developers being able to make use of it now.

So not "just a gimmick" then.

Stiggles · 03-10-2013, 19:38

Quote: