Qualcomm - 'less cores = more' advert
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdauwqhmsas
But will it be hot at stuttering if you multi-task ?
”
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdauwqhmsas
But will it be hot at stuttering if you multi-task ?
”
This is more than 1 years old.
It's a marketing thing.
Qualcomm released Snapdragon 615 which is 8 cores.
The fact is that Mediatek are getting loads more customers at the moment and are growing at a very fast rate.
Qualcomm are doing stupid marketing shit like the above in order to show how they're better than Mediatek, but then they end up copying Mediatek anyway.....
Yep, I had sort of realised it was likely quite old, and came more to better light when they started copying Mediatek.
Its like when Intel had to copy AMD who got to 64 bit first with consumers buying into 'more bits is better' which, as we know is the both true and false.
Its like when Intel had to copy AMD who got to 64 bit first with consumers buying into 'more bits is better' which, as we know is the both true and false.
I'd say until there are batteries that can feed those cores when they are actually doing something, four is about right. You want one process preparing work for a GPU without hiccups. You do not want background processing to make the foreground process stutter. And perhaps the app you are running is making use of threads and it actually makes sense. Having eight real cores in a mobile phone is a luxury. You do not find so many in laptops or desktops that often.
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“ Having eight real cores in a mobile phone is a luxury.”
“ Having eight real cores in a mobile phone is a luxury.”
They're mostly ARM's BIG.LITTLE design - 4 workhorse power hungry cores, and 4 lightweight cores, and the OS uses the ones it wants.
I think its widely acknowledged Android doesn't take full advantage of multi process architecture. ARM is constantly working on new reference designs, which form the basics for processors made and designed by the likes of Samsung or Qualcomm.
When Apple makes and designs their chips they are in the very fortunate position of also controlling the software that they run on. Which is why you will see iPhones having weaker grunt power (comparatively) than Android devices.
Although Samsung and HTC (et al) put their own custom skins atop of Android, the underlying code goes unchanged from its source. Naturally with each Android release Google will modify the code and further enhancing it. Android compared to a couple of years ago has come a long way since those heedy days of Gingerbread and the OS not being able to take full advantage of multiple cores.
The problem with Qualcomm is down to their own designs and sometimes not being as efficient as those offered by Samsung/Mediatek/Huawei. You may notice that new CPU technology from the latter 3 often has a clock speed lower than that of Qualcomm, however they also have implemented 64bit far sooner.
Its fair to say that Samsung ditching Qualcomm for their next flagship device is going to hurt the CPU maker's profits. Its expected as Samsung moves towards premium materials in their devices they will also utilise their own CPU division more to enhance their own product offerings.
Qualcomm are being bitten in the arse against their 810 being subject to overheating issues. I suspect this will lead to delays from some manufacturers flagship devices.
Samsung is lucky in thay it has divisions which can supply all of the materials and technology for any forthcoming device, something the rest of the industry (bar apple) can't do.
When Apple makes and designs their chips they are in the very fortunate position of also controlling the software that they run on. Which is why you will see iPhones having weaker grunt power (comparatively) than Android devices.
Although Samsung and HTC (et al) put their own custom skins atop of Android, the underlying code goes unchanged from its source. Naturally with each Android release Google will modify the code and further enhancing it. Android compared to a couple of years ago has come a long way since those heedy days of Gingerbread and the OS not being able to take full advantage of multiple cores.
The problem with Qualcomm is down to their own designs and sometimes not being as efficient as those offered by Samsung/Mediatek/Huawei. You may notice that new CPU technology from the latter 3 often has a clock speed lower than that of Qualcomm, however they also have implemented 64bit far sooner.
Its fair to say that Samsung ditching Qualcomm for their next flagship device is going to hurt the CPU maker's profits. Its expected as Samsung moves towards premium materials in their devices they will also utilise their own CPU division more to enhance their own product offerings.
Qualcomm are being bitten in the arse against their 810 being subject to overheating issues. I suspect this will lead to delays from some manufacturers flagship devices.
Samsung is lucky in thay it has divisions which can supply all of the materials and technology for any forthcoming device, something the rest of the industry (bar apple) can't do.
Most apps do not need multi core. Yet it is multi apps/backgroud that benefit.
Even Apple found using that 90nm Cortex M3 saves them energy whilst leaving its two main cores free to do grunt work.
Well written games are obviously where more processors come in useful, and I really cant see why an extra core of 1mm, turned off when not needed costing very little is a luxury. After all, those first 4 core 64 bit SOCS are already selling at $5 a piece, exactly why Qualcomm had to act fast with theirs.
Even Apple found using that 90nm Cortex M3 saves them energy whilst leaving its two main cores free to do grunt work.
Well written games are obviously where more processors come in useful, and I really cant see why an extra core of 1mm, turned off when not needed costing very little is a luxury. After all, those first 4 core 64 bit SOCS are already selling at $5 a piece, exactly why Qualcomm had to act fast with theirs.
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Even Apple found using that 90nm Cortex M3 saves them energy whilst leaving its two main cores free to do grunt work.”
“Even Apple found using that 90nm Cortex M3 saves them energy whilst leaving its two main cores free to do grunt work.”
But Apple doesn't use Cortex which is ARM's own design, Apple designs their own, so I don't understand?
Originally Posted by Aye Up:
“I think its widely acknowledged Android doesn't take full advantage of multi process architecture. ARM is constantly working on new reference designs, which form the basics for processors made and designed by the likes of Samsung or Qualcomm.
When Apple makes and designs their chips they are in the very fortunate position of also controlling the software that they run on. Which is why you will see iPhones having weaker grunt power (comparatively) than Android devices.
Although Samsung and HTC (et al) put their own custom skins atop of Android, the underlying code goes unchanged from its source. Naturally with each Android release Google will modify the code and further enhancing it. Android compared to a couple of years ago has come a long way since those heedy days of Gingerbread and the OS not being able to take full advantage of multiple cores.
The problem with Qualcomm is down to their own designs and sometimes not being as efficient as those offered by Samsung/Mediatek/Huawei. You may notice that new CPU technology from the latter 3 often has a clock speed lower than that of Qualcomm, however they also have implemented 64bit far sooner.
Its fair to say that Samsung ditching Qualcomm for their next flagship device is going to hurt the CPU maker's profits. Its expected as Samsung moves towards premium materials in their devices they will also utilise their own CPU division more to enhance their own product offerings.
Qualcomm are being bitten in the arse against their 810 being subject to overheating issues. I suspect this will lead to delays from some manufacturers flagship devices.
Samsung is lucky in thay it has divisions which can supply all of the materials and technology for any forthcoming device, something the rest of the industry (bar apple) can't do.”
“I think its widely acknowledged Android doesn't take full advantage of multi process architecture. ARM is constantly working on new reference designs, which form the basics for processors made and designed by the likes of Samsung or Qualcomm.
When Apple makes and designs their chips they are in the very fortunate position of also controlling the software that they run on. Which is why you will see iPhones having weaker grunt power (comparatively) than Android devices.
Although Samsung and HTC (et al) put their own custom skins atop of Android, the underlying code goes unchanged from its source. Naturally with each Android release Google will modify the code and further enhancing it. Android compared to a couple of years ago has come a long way since those heedy days of Gingerbread and the OS not being able to take full advantage of multiple cores.
The problem with Qualcomm is down to their own designs and sometimes not being as efficient as those offered by Samsung/Mediatek/Huawei. You may notice that new CPU technology from the latter 3 often has a clock speed lower than that of Qualcomm, however they also have implemented 64bit far sooner.
Its fair to say that Samsung ditching Qualcomm for their next flagship device is going to hurt the CPU maker's profits. Its expected as Samsung moves towards premium materials in their devices they will also utilise their own CPU division more to enhance their own product offerings.
Qualcomm are being bitten in the arse against their 810 being subject to overheating issues. I suspect this will lead to delays from some manufacturers flagship devices.
Samsung is lucky in thay it has divisions which can supply all of the materials and technology for any forthcoming device, something the rest of the industry (bar apple) can't do.”
According to LG there are no overheating issues with the 810. Samsung say otherwise.
Unless Samsung and Mediatek support devs in the way that Qualcomm do then I personnaly wouldn't be interested. My son has just sold his SGS3 due to the crap support from devs for AOSP builds.
Originally Posted by finbaar:
“According to LG there are no overheating issues with the 810. Samsung say otherwise.
Unless Samsung and Mediatek support devs in the way that Qualcomm do then I personnaly wouldn't be interested. My son has just sold his SGS3 due to the crap support from devs for AOSP builds.”
“According to LG there are no overheating issues with the 810. Samsung say otherwise.
Unless Samsung and Mediatek support devs in the way that Qualcomm do then I personnaly wouldn't be interested. My son has just sold his SGS3 due to the crap support from devs for AOSP builds.”
Several publications have quoted "sources" that Qualcomm are having trouble with 810 yield rate. Samsung wouldn't have taken the decision lightly given that they use Qualcomm for most of the handsets released in the west. I have noticed however that Samsungs own Exynos range seems to be used by more manufacturers in the south east asian markets. To be honest though I don't think it will be long before Samsung starts putting the 810 in some of its handsets later in the year.
Originally Posted by jchamier:
“But Apple doesn't use Cortex which is ARM's own design, Apple designs their own, so I don't understand?”
“But Apple doesn't use Cortex which is ARM's own design, Apple designs their own, so I don't understand?”
They have a license to adapt ARM designs but it looks like they never had the time to add their own for that co-processor.
So its a renamed NXP one that uses the Cortex M3. 90nm wont matter as that power usage is still tiny compared to those bigger 64 bit Cores.
I have a couple of those Cortex M3s in my Nook HD+.
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“They have a license to adapt ARM designs but it looks like they never had the time to add their own for that co-processor.”
“They have a license to adapt ARM designs but it looks like they never had the time to add their own for that co-processor.”
From Anandtech's and Chipworks reports, and the fact that Apple bought a chip design company, I'm pretty sure they don't adapt ARM's designs, but design from scratch using ARMs patents.
Originally Posted by jchamier:
“From Anandtech's and Chipworks reports, and the fact that Apple bought a chip design company, I'm pretty sure they don't adapt ARM's designs, but design from scratch using ARMs patents.”
“From Anandtech's and Chipworks reports, and the fact that Apple bought a chip design company, I'm pretty sure they don't adapt ARM's designs, but design from scratch using ARMs patents.”
Nope.
How I read into in the past(Anand explained it I'm sure) was that they took all the designs and modified them in various ways such as creating shorter interconnects and adding only parts of the ARM A15 design into an ARM A9 design to create the Apple A5.
The A7 and A8 likely use that same principal with ARMs A53 and A57 cores.
Qualcomm did the exact same with Krait. As we know, ARM released a Cortext A12 very similar to the Apple and Qualcomm stuff. So, we even have a chicken and egg question with all 3 of the 32 bit designs.
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Nope.
How I read into in the past(Anand explained it I'm sure) was that they took all the designs and modified them in various ways such as creating shorter interconnects and adding only parts of the ARM A15 design into an ARM A9 design to create the Apple A5.
The A7 and A8 likely use that same principal with ARMs A53 and A57 cores.
Qualcomm did the exact same with Krait. As we know, ARM released a Cortext A12 very similar to the Apple and Qualcomm stuff. So, we even have a chicken and egg question with all 3 of the 32 bit designs.”
“Nope.
How I read into in the past(Anand explained it I'm sure) was that they took all the designs and modified them in various ways such as creating shorter interconnects and adding only parts of the ARM A15 design into an ARM A9 design to create the Apple A5.
The A7 and A8 likely use that same principal with ARMs A53 and A57 cores.
Qualcomm did the exact same with Krait. As we know, ARM released a Cortext A12 very similar to the Apple and Qualcomm stuff. So, we even have a chicken and egg question with all 3 of the 32 bit designs.”
Okay, so it surprises that Qualcomm's 64bit snapdragon is significantly slower than others.
Others ?
(You can't quite compare to Apple as different compilers usually mean you are comparing Apples and Oranges)
(You can't quite compare to Apple as different compilers usually mean you are comparing Apples and Oranges)
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Others ?
(You can't quite compare to Apple as different compilers usually mean you are comparing Apples and Oranges)”
“Others ?
(You can't quite compare to Apple as different compilers usually mean you are comparing Apples and Oranges)”
I was thinking same benchmark on Apple A7/A8 and the Snapdragon - but if its the compiler then the comparison is void.
Its an area I'm still well baffled by.
Another thing I'm well puzzled on is why the Cortex A15 did not show big gains on certain situations compared to Krait.
Maybe the Android compiler is not optimized for the A15 or maybe no tests have been publicised.
Another thing I'm well puzzled on is why the Cortex A15 did not show big gains on certain situations compared to Krait.
Maybe the Android compiler is not optimized for the A15 or maybe no tests have been publicised.
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Maybe the Android compiler is not optimized for the A15 or maybe no tests have been publicised.”
“Maybe the Android compiler is not optimized for the A15 or maybe no tests have been publicised.”
So much Android code is Java, it will depend on Davlik run-time optimisations or the new ART pre-compiler.
Its maybe not even that. I think I recall reading that they used GCC to compile the Android code to benchmark test.
It could be that Apple has a far better compiler, and for Android versus Android GCC may have lots of factors leading to bad code.
It could be that Apple has a far better compiler, and for Android versus Android GCC may have lots of factors leading to bad code.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-and-618-chips
Well, they much new 8 core stuff coming out. More importantly they also look to be the first to use the new Cortex A72.
So, rather than do a 64 bit Krait they have now opted to use the A72, which by the looks of it is looking similar to the Cortex A12, that 32 bit ARM chip that is very Krait like.
I guess they got wrong footed by Apple and way back, did not choose to work alongside ARM on 64 bit architecture.
Well, they much new 8 core stuff coming out. More importantly they also look to be the first to use the new Cortex A72.
So, rather than do a 64 bit Krait they have now opted to use the A72, which by the looks of it is looking similar to the Cortex A12, that 32 bit ARM chip that is very Krait like.
I guess they got wrong footed by Apple and way back, did not choose to work alongside ARM on 64 bit architecture.
