Does Trinity have an ATI display Chip as Hermes did? If not, which chip is inside Trinity?
Thanks.
nologin said:
Does Trinity have an ATI display Chip as Hermes did? If not, which chip is inside Trinity?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The chipset used in the Trinity (Qualcomm 6275) does contain a graphics processor, however based on the outcome of benchmarks (pre production models) we may assume that the graphics processor part is not active yet.
Follow the link for a more detailed description of the chipset.
http://translate.google.com/transla...&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools
XenoV said:
The chipset used in the Trinity (Qualcomm 6275) does contain a graphics processor, however based on the outcome of benchmarks (pre production models) we may assume that the graphics processor part is not active yet.
Follow the link for a more detailed description of the chipset.
http://translate.google.com/transla...&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your answer.
As far as I know, Hermes also equipped with this chipset, but it seems the chipset has never been activated in hermes. I really wonder if the functionalities of Qualcomm 6275 would be activated in Trinity.
Would the processing power of samsung CPU (400Mhz) alone be able to decode MP4 video at 30fps?
Thanks again.
It should as I am doing that on my Wizard using pocketDVD Studio and TCPMP player using the wizards 200Mhz. CPU. It gets choppy sometimes but only during intense scenes and lasts only for a second or 2. I think it is still watchible though. Hope this helps.
See subject line.
I need to admit, its a lot.
But, i wonder how the memory is being shared. The HD2 has 428MB of total Ram.
But 128MB is being used by the GPU. The question is, is the 428MB ram, really global ram. Or is the 128MB ram dedicated ram for the GPU ( like the 2700g has 16MB dedicated ram ).
If its global ram, then maybe its possible to reduce the ram amount to 64MB or 32MB, and use the rest for programs... So many open question, so little information about the snapdragon's design
For instance, the Toshiba TG01 & Asus F1, both have 256MB global ram. But does that mean that both companies did not report the 128MB "extra" ram, in there total like HTC does. Or does it mean, that they use a smaller part off the 256MB ram, for its GPU.
i'm hoping that its going to be in preperation for what comes with Winmo 7, perhaps gaming, maybe MS requires such a high amount of vram as a standard?
Doesn't it have 448MB? 320+128?
Dark Fire said:
Doesn't it have 448MB? 320+128?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, you are right. My bad. It's indeed 448MB.
Yeah. 448MB = 128MB dedicated video memory, plus 320MB conventional memory.
I suspect other vendors probably simply don't advertise video memory; it's also possible, of course, that they have a unified memory architecture (e.g. that the TG01 and Acer F1 use their main 256MB of regular memory to store video in); that might account for the Leo's 3D graphics benchmark scores exceeding those of the TG01.
Had been the same with the Xperia X1, there where also rumors that it does have (maybe has, don't know how to chekc this) 128 MB dedicated Video RAM. Don't care to much about it. It'll be fast enough anyway!
sthoeft said:
Had been the same with the Xperia X1, there where also rumors that it does have (maybe has, don't know how to chekc this) 128 MB dedicated Video RAM. Don't care to much about it. It'll be fast enough anyway!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is it even confirmed that 128 MB is indeed for VRAM, or is it just speculations so far (even though I'm inclined to think the same)?
Zhuk86 said:
i'm hoping that its going to be in preperation for what comes with Winmo 7, perhaps gaming, maybe MS requires such a high amount of vram as a standard?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't look like it will work on WM7 !!!!!!
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4802767&postcount=4
alecs said:
It doesn't look like it will work on WM7 !!!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Core requirements:
Processor: ARM v6+, L2 Cache, VFP, Open GL ES 2.0 graphics HW (QCOM 8k, Nvidia “Tegra” AP15/16* and TI 3430 all meet spec)
From that single post it states that WM7 needs a Tegra graphics chip... but from the release QCOM 8k also meets the requirements, and the Leo will have Snapdragon QSD8250 1 GHz processor..
Am I missing something?? it seems it should be upgradable to WM7.
alecs said:
It doesn't look like it will work on WM7 !!!!!!
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4802767&postcount=4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to B3ler3fonte who gave us details about the Leo in the general thread (here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=560143&page=48) it will be compatible with winmo 7.
In order to save some answers, I am posting you a far more detailed specs of Leo, so, as u can clearly see from the specs, u’ll notice (and I think it was a question which was circulating from loads around this thread, of whether future WM7 will or will not be supported by Leo) that it will be absolutely supported. I think we should all celebrate!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
why_999 said:
Core requirements:
Processor: ARM v6+, L2 Cache, VFP, Open GL ES 2.0 graphics HW (QCOM 8k, Nvidia “Tegra” AP15/16* and TI 3430 all meet spec)
From that single post it states that WM7 needs a Tegra graphics chip... but from the release QCOM 8k also meets the requirements, and the Leo will have Snapdragon QSD8250 1 GHz processor..
Am I missing something?? it seems it should be upgradable to WM7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry I must be missing something, from this spec list I can't see anything related to QCOM 8k ?
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=2062&c=htc_hd2_us_htc_leo
alecs said:
Sorry I must be missing something, from this spec list I can't see anything related to QCOM 8k ?
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=2062&c=htc_hd2_us_htc_leo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Qualcomm 8k = Snapdragon's QSD8xxx-series chips = Qualcomm Snapdragon QSD8250 (which is in the Leo).. so the processor should meet WM7 chassis 1 requirement.
why_999 said:
Qualcomm 8k = Snapdragon's QSD8xxx-series chips = Qualcomm Snapdragon QSD8250 (which is in the Leo).. so the processor should meet WM7 chassis 1 requirement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Why_999 I wasn't aware that the snapdragon was Qualcomm 8k series processor.
i think it should be reserved memory actually for some sense UI things and similar stuffs . not dedicated video RAM
Isnt 128 too much just for clouds? There are 3 variants possible:
- someone was speculating with specs in his blog and the rumor broke out;
- thats for gaming purposes( see wm7);
- thats for iphone graphics emulator)))
RAM is split between ARM cores, general-purpose ARM11 and radio ARM9. Portions can be reserved for other purposes (video acceleration for one) too. Chances are there's ~256Mb of RAM accessible from OS on HD2, which is fairly reasonable, IMO. More RAM means less battery life...
It's "just" to have the 1Go needed for WinMo7... I am sure our cookers will change this to get the best of this awesome phone
So qualcom realeased their new S4 chips that are said to be backwards compatible with S1 hardware/software... Would that mean the HD2 that has S1 can be replaced with a newer one? In theory anyways...
Just a random thought
sent from my Rezound
Thatz a promising thought. But who will take such a risk? After all its soldered into pcb. And removing it is a hell job. U r dealing with something like brain transplanting...
send from my hd2 @ miui 1.12.2
True, but in this community there are some crazy people roaming around
But then the question comes up, how would somebody get a hold of that chip
.. Dreams
sent from my Rezound
noup, not a chance.
backwards compatibility mostly refers to the software platform/applications or the instruction set that particular cpu must execute.
For example, x86 - is a platform (PC) defined by a specific instruction set executed by all cpu's in that family. Any x86 cpu must be able to execute those specific instructions in the same manner, thus making it easier for software developers to create programs for that platform. So, either if you have an AMD or Intel chip inside, from the software point of view, it's just the same deal.
To place it in a more familiar context a Pentium 4 class CPU is x86 compatible. But so is a Core2Duo chip. Therefore, even if the C2D chip supports aditional features, at it's core, it's still x86 compatible. So you can still run your older programs on it. However, at hardware level, things are different since those 2 chips have different hardware layout, different number of pins, require different motherboards etc. Furthermore, for the sake of example an Intel 486 chip and a core I7 chip are both x86 compatible (you can.. in fact run windows 7 on a 486 chip, but... it will take some ..time) , but other then this, they are totally different chips.
In the case of HD2, it's just the same. You cannot simply swap one chip and solder another, for the same reason. They require different hardware layouts - specific motherboards and I/O interfaces.
Guys who hack for a hobby, or who work on Android development can probably pass on this thread, as they will, or should already know the following.
For everyone else:
Not all Galaxy Note smart-phones are equal. The same applies to every other smartphone, computer, computer chip, computer component, or aeroplane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU This aeroplane was hard-bricked because the programmers didn't understand how we fly aircraft, and the pilot not understanding the programming logic, probably because he was never told. BUT, there might be another reason. Quality control of the computer chip. In the days I'm talking about, every chip was manufactured as a 486 or 386 chip, under-testing, if it failed, it would then be tested as an SX chip (the math co-processor disabled) if it passed the lesser test, it would pass as a SX chip, instead of the premium DX chip. So if anyone bought a computer with a SX chip, they bought a failed chip. Just like the guys who built that aeroplane, it had 6 or 7 SX (failed) chips driving the whole thing. Of course, the chip and plane makers insist there was nothing wrong with the product, it must be the pilots fault. In a way they are correct, the components met specification, but when the pilot pulls up, and commands full power.....and it still hard-bricks itself....hmmm...someones lying.
Quality control over chips is pretty much the same today as it was then. To expect 100% perfect chips to be installed into 100% smartphones would result in most chips winding up in landfill and your phone costing £$kk. So we have to compromise, and find acceptable limits. When your phone was made and software loaded for the first time and tested, it worked, but doesn't mean it will work the next time upgrade software is loaded. That is one reason for hard bricking a phone or aeroplane. So when you flash up the latest software, a warranty would be nice.
The next reasons for hard-bricking your phone is many fold, and many will be familiar with this. I'm now talking about peripheral devices, magnetometers, giros, accelerometers and on... The same still applies to these devices as the chips when it comes to quality control. So that's another point. But are ALL devices in your phone exactly the same, from the same manufacturer, in EVERYONES phone? Personally I doubt it. Buy any make and model of computer you want, and I'll guarantee that I can find differences in components for that brand and model. So what? Well this is what, those different devices may well have differing driver requirements. The same applies to your smart phone.
Case Study:
I speced up my own faster than me PC, had the component list checked by an expert. We all felt happy and I bought it, it was also assembled by experts. It powered up, passed all the tests, memory, bench marking, you name it, we did it. All passed. Happy? NO! In use I got random BSOD. fault traced to an instruction sent from the chip to the mobo which the driver did not recognise. Found offending setting in the BIOS and stopped the instruction being sent. Now have a very stable and fast PC. Both Intel and the mobo makers said their product was perfect. They are correct, but with certain combinations of hardware, this glitch comes up. Guess what, its the same for your smart phone.
There are many reasons why Samsung and all the other makers 'regionalise' the product. Language comes top of the list to most people, but it goes further. Because the components wont all be the same, from the same factory, or the same maker, phones will be made in batches. All the phones with giro 'A' go to the USA, all phones with giro 'B' go to India and so on. Assume Giro 'A' needs a different driver to giro 'B'. When we upgrade to a new android version, the USA will get a different upgrade to India, and one will be released before the other. Translate this to all of the other peripheral devices, and you can then begin to understand why there are so many different ROMs out there, and why Samsung roll out in slow time. They have to make sure, as best they can, that the upgrade has the correct coding for your phone, because your phone is different.
There are some misconceptions about what is an official ROM. To me, an official ROM is one that Samsung selected for me, via KIES. A ROM destined for users in say, Australia, is not an official ROM for me with an EU phone, otherwise, why would Samsung make life hard for themselves by having extra ROM releases? Just pause and think, that's all.
One more point. It would be helpful for those that can, post a hardware list when they spot faults, bugs and hard bricks. No one seems to do that, but on PC forums, that is the norm. Maybe we could get much more accurate with our hack and so on if we could do this. here is what's under my bonnet:
Sensor - Accelerometer: K3DH Acceleration Sensor, Vendor: STMicroelectronics, Version: 1, Power: 0.2, Resolution: 0.0048, Max Range: 19.6.
Sensor - Gyroscope: K3G Gyroscope Sensor, Vendor: STMicroelectronics, Version: 1, Power: 6.1, Resolution: 0.0003, Max Range: 8.7.
Sensor - Pressure: BMP182 Pressure Sensor, Vendor: Bosch, Version: 1, Power: 0.1, Resolution: 0.0100, Max Range: 1100.0.
Sensor - Magnet: AK8975 Magnetic field Sensor, Vendor: Asahi Kasei Microdevices, Version: 1, Power: 6.0, Resolution: 0.0600, Max Range: 2000.0.
Sensor - Orientation: AK8975 Orientation Sensor, Vendor: Asahi Kasei Microdevices, Version: 1, Power: 7.8, Resolution: 0.0156, Max Range: 360.0.
Sensor - Light: GP2A Light Sensor, Vendor: Sharp, Version: 1, Power: 0.8, Resolution: 1.0, Max Range: 3000.0.
Sensor - Proximity: GP2A Proximity Sensor, Vendor: Sharp, Version: 1, Power: 0.8, Resolution: 5.0, Max Range: 5.0.
Sensor - Gravity: Gravity Sensor, Vendor: Google Inc., Version: 1, Power: 0.2, Resolution: 0.0048, Max Range: 19.6.
Sensor - Linear Acceleration: Linear Acceleration Sensor, Vendor: Google Inc., Version: 1, Power: 0.2, Resolution: 0.0048, Max Range: 19.6.
Sensor - Rotation: Rotation Vector Sensor, Vendor: Google Inc., Version: 1, Power: 6.2, Resolution: 0.0000, Max Range: 1.0.
Awesome post man! I too always wondered why there were so many different "official ROMs". Very nice post.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA
So, based on your reasoning, we should assume that the German LPY firmware should be more safe for German phones.
Could we test such assumption? Did superbricked devices come most likely from non-German devices?
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
debernardis said:
So, based on your reasoning, we should assume that the German LPY firmware should be more safe for German phones.
Could we test such assumption? Did superbricked devices come most likely from non-German devices?
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is how the reasoning works. Thats why its important to post hardware detail and the Samsung pre-installed version ROM. We have to know the start point, know the success, and the failures, to get some reasoning into why some phones brick, and others don't.
long read, but after the first paragraph.. i think u are FOS! if sx chips are failed dx chips then that would mean the manufacturer would have go check every chip to make to find out if it's sx or dx.. FOS! it's more likely there was a separate manufacturing process for the sx and dx chip.. i couldn't be bothered reading the rest
Interesting argument, but I think a simpler reason for there being multiple ROMs is purely due to ease of distribution OTA by the carriers on specific national networks rather than due to hardware differences.
It's certainly true that not all smartphones of the same name all have identical components inside (the US version of the S3 is a case in point), but this current issue with ICS seems to be due to a revision of firmware causing damage to flash chips. I would guess that all flash chips on all variants of the Note are susceptible until proven otherwise - e.g. no issues with those who have "German" Notes flashing LPY.
Coincidentally, I have a "German" Note, but I have no interest in being a guinea pig. I'll wait for the software fix .
Replying to the OP... While you are somewhat correct about CPUs 20 years ago it's not quite the same today. Generally CPUs are speed tested and you are more likely to grade a CPU on reliable clock frequency rather than retarding it's functionality in any way. A lot more effort is put into manufacturing processes for reliability than 20 years ago and the small % of devices that fail nowadays are more likely to be thrown away or recycled.
Your case study is flawed and somewhat insulting to engineers. To suggest you stringing a few components together and calling it a well designed PC because an 'expert' had given it a thumbs up and then installing a generic OS on it is the same as a mobile phone that has been bespoke designed by a team of engineers, with firmware especially developed to work with that hardware is way off. And, yes, you are getting a bespoke build of Android on the Note.
I'm not suggesting that our phones will be bug free, but all the hardware and firmware will have been exhaustively tested on multiple examples of the device under different loads.
Apple v Microsoft is a classic example here. MS designed the OS and left component manufacturers to do the drivers. Result, nobody really knows how well the components will work together and the solution is only as good as the combination of drivers, etc. Apple decided to strictly control what hardware is in their machines and could optimise the OS to work reliably with that hardware.
bamboo12 said:
long read, but after the first paragraph.. i think u are FOS! if sx chips are failed dx chips then that would mean the manufacturer would have go check every chip to make to find out if it's sx or dx.. FOS! it's more likely there was a separate manufacturing process for the sx and dx chip.. i couldn't be bothered reading the rest
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, FOS, that's just your opinion and that's your right. BUT that's EXACTLY how it used to happen. I'm not going to start writing up history lessons here, I'll leave the research to you. Maybe you'll learn something along the way, including some manners. I'm always up for reasoned discussion, but personal insult just hits a brick wall with me.
emuX said:
............
Your case study is flawed and somewhat insulting to engineers. ......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure how I insult engineers, that is not my intent. So if there are any engineers out there who feel insulted, I apologise.
bamboo12 said:
long read, but after the first paragraph.. i think u are FOS! if sx chips are failed dx chips then that would mean the manufacturer would have go check every chip to make to find out if it's sx or dx.. FOS! it's more likely there was a separate manufacturing process for the sx and dx chip.. i couldn't be bothered reading the rest
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as the 386/486 DX/SX goes, it is true. I guess even today's lower cache processors are defect chips where they turn off specific part of the memory and brand as medium/entry level chips.
So what's the thread title have to do with this? It should read: (THEORY) Flashing ICS Region Other than Original Manufacturer POSSIBLY Dangerous
Or
(THEORY) Samsung Bins Parts ....like everyother manufacturer out there
I'm not knocking what you're saying. Look at Intel, most cpus cut from the same wafer but just binned according to their resistance and that's how you get a $200 processor vs a black box $1000. They will even turn off cores
Hi,
I am wondering whether the Galaxy S4 (I9500, specifically) can be used as a development board.
By this I mean something like the Raspberry Pi, BeagleBone, etc.
The I9500 already has powerfull CPU, 2G RAM and lots of ROM. What is missing (if at all) is:
# I/O pins. I am sure the exynos 5 has lots of I/Os, but the question is how many of them are accessible on the I9500 board? Looking at techinsights.com teardown article, the motherboard looks very dense and no I/Os seem to be accessible, but hopefully I a, wrong.
# Ability to run Android 4.0 (or any other version) with minimal resources. For example, is it possible to run Android in text-mode so that we leave the RAM and CPU power for the application we want to run/use?
# Availability of replacement parts individually. In such case, we would "buy" a blank motherboard with only the CPU, RAM, ROM and PMIC chips. All other chips (all of networking) are irrelevant. This should not be too expensive(or is it?). This poses another question about the ability to modify Android so that it still work without having the other chips on board.
BTW: Where is the GPS module? It is not mentioned in the teardown article.
Regards,
1ccbf