Related
I just read this article about Gingerbread and the 1Ghz 512mb requirements. This article says that because the nexus one is clocked at 998mhz and since the rumored HTC vision the first dual core phone with 2 cores at 800mhz, (with a max stated by Qualcomm of 1.2ghz per core) won't qualify for Gingerbread.
How stupid can they possibly be? I really hate it when stupid people write tech articles.
http://www.mobilemag.com/2010/06/30...uire-1ghz-processors-coming-mid-october-2010/
Yeah, N1 will surely get 3.0. 998MHz is less than 3% off from 1024MHz so I wouldn't worry about it.
Also, I'm failing to see how 2 cores is a good idea on a smartphone, unless it has some amazing battery, or I'm wrong about CPU power consumption. Dual cores have been popular on desktops for years now, and few apps actually use more than one core at a time. Android is designed to use as little CPU for background tasks as possible so I can only imagine multi-cores would only help with Flash and maybe video recording. 2 cores at 800Mhz seems like it would be slower than 1 core at 1Ghz for most tasks, and less efficient. I'll probably be proven wrong, but we'll see.
First, the RUMOR is just that. A rumor. It's probably fake.
Second, 1ghz, if anything, is probably a suggestion to mfgrs that Google doesn't recommend you run it on anything less than something that's 1ghz.
It's a rumor that's probably false and someone wrote an article assuming that stars had to mathematically align for things to happen.
That's what I call a TROLL ARTICLE. Just trying to drudge up some hits. Most iphone articles are the same thing. People eat them up, but they contain no real news or useful information.
Gr8gorilla said:
How stupid can they possibly be? I really hate it when stupid people write tech articles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah me too! but it makes my day easier by giving oe something to hate
Its a good thing a GOOGLE EMPLOYEE just yesterday said the Gingerbread requirement rumors were complete b.s. and made up for the sake of writing an article.
gizmodo.com/5578055/android-gingerbread-rumors-dismissed-by-google-on-twitter
Well the specs on the leaked vision have it using the new dual core qualcomm processors. Qualcomm specs on the processor have it using less power with the 45n process in manufacturing. I am just guessing here but the processor has the ability to be clocked to 1.2ghz but I guess it is clocked down to 800 per core for the battery life.
But anyway it is all speculation until some pics or some test devices get out.
I mean if they were planning on releasing a dual core phone running Gingerbread in less than 4 months, why would the carriers or manufacturer's want you to know? Then you would wait to buy a phone. The way it works now is, you get the best thing going, say an evo or the new samsung phone. Then 3 months from now, a phone drops that blows everything else out of the water, you have got to have the latest and greatest so you drop another 500-600 on that just a few months later. They make a lot more money that way.
Don't you guys follow Romain Guy on twitter? http://twitter.com/romainguy
I love it when people just make stuff up and report it as news. http://goo.gl/cwbf
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He already said yesterday that the rumors are fake. Why do you still think this is true?
There's no minimum specs for Gingerbread and i'm 100% sure that N1 will get it.
Even if it doesn't, wouldn't you be tempted to get a dual code device in late fall?
I'll most probably get a device like that with 3.0 on it.
DDM123 said:
Yeah, N1 will surely get 3.0. 998MHz is less than 3% off from 1024MHz so I wouldn't worry about it.
Also, I'm failing to see how 2 cores is a good idea on a smartphone, unless it has some amazing battery, or I'm wrong about CPU power consumption. Dual cores have been popular on desktops for years now, and few apps actually use more than one core at a time. Android is designed to use as little CPU for background tasks as possible so I can only imagine multi-cores would only help with Flash and maybe video recording. 2 cores at 800Mhz seems like it would be slower than 1 core at 1Ghz for most tasks, and less efficient. I'll probably be proven wrong, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree that dual core on a phone is probably overkill, there are quite a few reasons..
Dual core can be more power efficient, sharing hardware while having overall higher capacity.
Faster processors = Hotter, more power requirements, etc
Multiple cores isn't just for single-app speed, it's for multiple apps running simultaneously without affecting each other. Of course if you need an app to do heavy processing it should multithread and use multiple cores, but I doubt you'll be rendering in Blender on your phone.... But with dual core, you can have two apps using 100% of a CPU without noticing any slowdown. Or... 1 app using 100% CPU and the other CPU free to do other stuff, letting the system stay responsive.
AOSP doesn't have hardware requirements.
Market has hardware requirements.
Even if fake or not, this thread is stupid cause the thread starter thinks the nexus is not a 1 ghz phone cause its only 998. Umm have you never seen Google's official spec page, they quote it at 1 ghz. Geez.
RogerPodacter said:
Even if fake or not, this thread is stupid cause the thread starter thinks the nexus is not a 1 ghz phone cause its only 998. Umm have you never seen Google's official spec page, they quote it at 1 ghz. Geez.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Troll, where in his post does he say that?
These rumors were already denounced.
http://phandroid.com/2010/07/02/dan-morrill-calls-foul-on-whoever-started-that-gingerbread-rumor/
How people could believe them from the beginning is just bonkers to me.
DDM123 said:
Yeah, N1 will surely get 3.0. 998MHz is less than 3% off from 1024MHz so I wouldn't worry about it.
Also, I'm failing to see how 2 cores is a good idea on a smartphone, unless it has some amazing battery, or I'm wrong about CPU power consumption. Dual cores have been popular on desktops for years now, and few apps actually use more than one core at a time. Android is designed to use as little CPU for background tasks as possible so I can only imagine multi-cores would only help with Flash and maybe video recording. 2 cores at 800Mhz seems like it would be slower than 1 core at 1Ghz for most tasks, and less efficient. I'll probably be proven wrong, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 GHZ is 1000 Mhz not 1024, this is not Byte or flash memory... so 998Mhz is basically 1GHZ like you said, just even closer
And the whole thing is a scam as the previous poster said...
McFroger3 said:
Troll, where in his post does he say that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oops i read it as HE was saying that, but he meant the article said that (which i didnt read as you can tell). my bad people
and BTW, stop calling everyone a troll at the drop of a hat. so i mis-read something. doesnt mean troll. troll this, troll that. my post history speaks pretty clearly that i've not once posted such things.
lorin.bute said:
Don't you guys follow Romain Guy on twitter? http://twitter.com/romainguy
He already said yesterday that the rumors are fake. Why do you still think this is true?
There's no minimum specs for Gingerbread and i'm 100% sure that N1 will get it.
Even if it doesn't, wouldn't you be tempted to get a dual code device in late fall?
I'll most probably get a device like that with 3.0 on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes will get dual core. Point of my post is not the validity of the requirements but the statements about what phones would get the updates if the requirements were true. Anyway, with romain guys post its moot!
I just found this picture
dev.odroid.com/wiki/odroid-t/pds/FrontPage/s_blockdiagram.jpg
So does it mean only 384MB DDR is available in system?
May be this is the reason why 305M ram shows in JP3 firmware.
That could make sense.
I wonder what the difference between them is?...Could one be dedicated to the GPU or in charge of background stuff?
Did anyone notice MFC 1080p 30 fps there?
That system block diagram isn't a Samsung official one, and frankly, i think it's wrong.
If the main memory in the Galaxy S was LPDDR1, we'd see lower GPU performance, MUCH lower. Memory bandwidth is everything when it comes to GPU on mobile devices like this.
Pika007 said:
That system block diagram isn't a Samsung official one, and frankly, i think it's wrong.
If the main memory in the Galaxy S was LPDDR1, we'd see lower GPU performance, MUCH lower. Memory bandwidth is everything when it comes to GPU on mobile devices like this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPU RAM must be OneDRAM，OneDRAM is much faster than normal DRAM.
You can google "OneDRAM".
So I guess we might not really have 512MB of ram (as advertised)... isn't it? I mean, if these MBs are reserved to GPU use only. There will come a day when they will be needed for other use than graphics :|.
They are not reserved for GPU use only.
OneDRAM is like an intersection for routing information with as-little-as-possible blockades in the middle.
Splitting the memory to "conventional" ram and onedram is going against the very principal of onedram. I am having a hard time to believe they actually did that.
^Sbk79^ said:
So I guess we might not really have 512MB of ram (as advertised)... isn't it? I mean, if these MBs are reserved to GPU use only. There will come a day when they will be needed for other use than graphics :|.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no official statement about RAM size.
I noticed the diagram says "TFT LCDC". That seems wrong, does it not?
coocood said:
There is no official statement about RAM size.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. You'll find a lot of press about the Galaxy S having 512mb RAM, but where does Samsung itself advertise this? I cannot find anything about it anywhere on Samsungs website. Maybe we should ask them?
GSMarena pressed on the issue when the phone was released, and samsung replied that there are indeed 512MB.
Lol....So do we actually know if it has 512MB of RAM or not? As some others have stated it might help explain why the Sammy has lag issues and the Desire does not..
BTW, I dont own either at present and am just going by what I have read in these forums.
That diagram also doesn't list wireless N, does that mean our phones don't have wireless n???
Pika007 said:
GSMarena pressed on the issue when the phone was released, and samsung replied that there are indeed 512MB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well..... using my onboard math processor I compuete that 384+128 = 512..
So samsung wouldnt have been lying if they had said there was 512.. even if 128 might be dedicated to the gpu or something else. 512+128 would have been nicer though.
I wonder if this diagram is accurate.
The picture is of ODROID-T which is a tablet style device for developers.
Its hardwares are quite similar to SGS but I don't think this block diagram should be showing exactly the same informations as SGS's.
Have a look at this site;
http://dev.odroid.com/wiki/odroid-t/
Well, the S5PC110 doesn't have the memory built in beforehand. It's changeable, the controller supports OneDRAM, LPDDR1 and LPDDR2. You can stick whatever you want in there.
Remember that only what's in the blue square is the actual SOC.
Kilack said:
well..... using my onboard math processor I compuete that 384+128 = 512..
So samsung wouldnt have been lying if they had said there was 512.. even if 128 might be dedicated to the gpu or something else. 512+128 would have been nicer though.
I wonder if this diagram is accurate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does this differ from the HTC Desire setup? I know it has 576 MB RAM, but not sure how its split up...
Well, I checked before posting. Google for an official press release from Samsung Australia. Xda is not letting me post external links due to my low number of posts. However, I love my S. I'm just saying that this mem thing is starting to smell a little bit of i7500, from a customer relations' POV. Let's just hope we actually have a different design and that, as rumors say, new kernels will unlock all available ram.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
I also found a tear down analysis of Korean version galaxy s.
The author said it has "4Gb NAND+3Gb DDR+1Gb OneNand",which is incorrect.
Some comment below said it is OneDram actually.
If not for the OneDram,How can samsung declare 90M triangles/sec instead of powerVR's figure of 28M triangles/sec.
OneDram is more expensive than DDR.
I guess samsung does't say anything about RAM because it's a different structure,and hard to explain.
gosh i have been lurking on these forums to buy this phone
but with this memory issue it seems like the OMNIA II all over again
there the phone was advertisied with 512mb but only so little was left to the user!!
samsung samsng oh samsung!
Edit: TL;DR VERSION: 128 of that 512 megs of RAM in ur Epic is leet special-sawce Samsung RAM that pwns other RAMs, and makes ur GPU make moar trianglez in ur gamez.
Forgive me folks, I'm lazy, so I'm posting this more or less verbatim from what I posted in my blog, with a few minor tweaks. It's long and probably boring, so you have my apologies in advance.
Despite my efforts to pull myself away from ARM architecture, Android, and specifically, the mysteries surrounding the Hummingbird processor, I can never really extract myself. One of these days I'll get around to obsessing over something else (hopefully career-related) but until then, I'll let you know what I think I've uncovered as the solution to how Samsung solved the GPU bandwidth issue (which I puzzled over in my original Hummingbird vs. Snapdragon article.)
There have been a few opportunities where I've had to step in and correct people when they post that a Galaxy S phone has only ~320 megs of RAM. It's an error I see made frequently when people use Android system info applications that can only see the 320 megs of volatile memory, despite the fact that the phone does actually contain 512 megs of RAM. We see it happen every time a new Galaxy S phone is leaked, even the Nexus S.
The explanation for this has always been that a certain amount of memory have been "reserved" by Samsung for the Android OS, and that memory is not visible nor available to applications. Despite this, I've never been able to figure out exactly how the system provides the 12.6 GB/sec of memory bandwidth it (theoretically) needs to push out 90 million triangles/sec with the PowerVR SGX540 GPU.
I'm not quite sure how it happened, but in my meanderings across the interwebs, I ran across the following image on ODROID.com of the block diagram of the S5PC110 that they use for their developer board.
(Edit: Image-Shacked... ODROID didn't appreciate me hot-linking their image. Whoops. Use the ODROID.com link above to see the original.)
Careful observation of the POP (Package-On-Package, or "Stacked" circuits) module on the left-hand side shows 384 MB of LPDDR1 and 128MB of OneDRAM, a term I'd noticed on S5PC110 documentation on the list of supported technologies. I'd assumed that it wasn't used. I'd already determined that even though the Hummingbird supports LPDDR2, it only supports it at 400 Mbps transfer rate (which LPDDR1 is capable of) and, with an x32 bus, only allows for 1.6 GBps data bandwidth, a far cry from the 12.6 GBps needed.
So what is this OneDRAM? According to Samsung, "OneDRAM is a fusion memory chip that, can significantly increase the data processing speed between a communications processor and a media processor in mobile devices," and, "...this results resulting in a five-fold increase in the speed of cellular phone and gaming console operations, longer battery life and slimmer handset designs." (Sic.)
Hear hear! 5 times 1.6 GBps still doesn't equal 12.6, but the 12.6 number is a something I arrived at using a lot of assumptions (4.2 GBps bandwidth needed by the PowerVR SGX540 to perform 28 million triangles per second, multiplied times 3 to make ~90 million triangles per second). I'm satisfied that the OneDRAM is that holy grail memory I've been looking for.
Now, how to prove that it actually exists inside my Epic 4G? Remember, the S5PC110 Hummingbird doesn't come with memory built-in; that's something that gets stacked on when the phone is built. The ODROID guys could very well be using a completely different configuration; though that ~320 megs showing up over and over in Android system info apps hardly seems like a coincidence, assuming the difference between 384 and 320 is actually reserved memory for the OS' own system applications. The OneDRAM on the other hand would be reserved primarily for hardware use, such as the GPU as Samsung earlier suggested.
I turned to one of my Android developer acquaintences, noobnl of xda-developers.com. When I showed him what I've run across, (hoping to see if he'd heard of this before, as he has a good handle on Epic hardware) he told me that I had made a good find. He also pasted some kernel code that clearly referenced OneDRAM, proving that the Epic 4G contains this technology.
So there you go folks. The secret is out. The Galaxy S phones are likely able to achieve such amazing graphics performance via a 128 MB Samsung-proprietary high-speed hybrid memory solution. The remaining 384 megs of memory is plain-jane LPDDR1. The total is the promised 512 megs, and honestly, I wouldn't trade the OneDRAM for 128 megs more of LPDDR1 available application memory, but it's interesting how Samsung has kept the OneDRAM solution so quiet. It's likely enjoying the current GPU supremacy of the Galaxy S phones, unfortunately come Cortex-A9, LPDDR2 memory (> 400 Mbps), and dual-channel memory controllers, they will be back on a level playing field. Who could blame them for setting aside Orion and picking up NVIDIA's Tegra 2 SoCs for their next-gen smartphones? It's a fast-moving industry out there, particularly when you don't have Intrinsity any longer as your ace-in-the-hole. Curse you, Apple.
PS - Some of you guys on here know more about this **** than I do. Please feel free to offer suggestions, corrections, and jeers. Though I'm hoping for less of the latter.
Dude what?
Sent from my SGH-T959D using XDA App
Mannnnnnn ....I had a hunch it worked like that
thanks for clearing this up Im glad im not the only one that figured this out!
Are you not compensating for TBDR memory efficiency?
Interesting. Could also complicate porting newer Android versions, at least wih the same efficiency.
I pretend I understood all that you said..and say...Voila..FINALLY!
Yeah I've seen documentation saying the Galaxy S phones have 4Gb of RAM. 1Gb of which is OneDRAM and 3Gb is LPDDR (Idk version). Now, tell us why ODROID and the block diagram can do 1080p and we can't.
EDIT:
thephawx said:
Are you not compensating for TBDR memory efficiency?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just pulled my information from some raw data about the Intel GMA500 (which is an SGX540 disguised as Intel) running at 200 MHz. I would assume the 4.2 GB/s bandwidth needed assumes TBDR is being used.
It's a shaky line of reasoning though. Wish I had some more hard data on the SGX540, and more specifically, the clock rate it runs at in the Epic.
arashed31 said:
Yeah I've seen documentation saying the Galaxy S phones have 4Gb of RAM. 1Gb of which is OneDRAM and 3Gb is LPDDR (Idk version). Now, tell us why ODROID and the block diagram can do 1080p and we can't.
EDIT:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I could swear I've seen those numbers somewhere but I can't for the life of me find it.
As for the 1080p, that's a good catch; interesting. And, now that I look closer, WiFi doesn't have N support, though I suppose it's possible they used a different WiFi chip.
delete, double post.
Interesting...I guess it makes sense somewhat...though with that much processing why would they then set an FPS limit? is it suppose to be their way of saving energy?
As for 1080p..we have specifications for it..If i were to guess we just don't have the proper drivers...video decoding is done via the ARM Neon..so if anything 1080p would play slow..but it doesn't play at all...so its either locked out intentionally..or the driver is not configured to...I mean it can handle 720p at [email protected] reason why it can't handle 1080p at lower settings...
Wow.. My brains are like oh my gawds!
Interesting tho
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Another thing. If you look at the Bluetooth certification site you'll see the Samsung Epic is certified for Bluetooth 3.0. Even though the chip in there is a Broadcomm chip that only supports Wireless N and Bluetooth 3.0.
gTen said:
Interesting...I guess it makes sense somewhat...though with that much processing why would they then set an FPS limit? is it suppose to be their way of saving energy?
As for 1080p..we have specifications for it..If i were to guess we just don't have the proper drivers...video decoding is done via the ARM Neon..so if anything 1080p would play slow..but it doesn't play at all...so its either locked out intentionally..or the driver is not configured to...I mean it can handle 720p at [email protected] reason why it can't handle 1080p at lower settings...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Video decoding is on the processor? WHAT. THE. HELL. SAMSUNG.
Sounds like you did your homework, i'll buy it. Thanks for sharing. I'll take the fast vid over ram too
tmuka said:
Sounds like you did your homework, i'll buy it. Thanks for sharing. I'll take the fast vid over ram too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Homework, yes... but I'd really like to see an ARM engineer affirm it.
gTen said:
Interesting...I guess it makes sense somewhat...though with that much processing why would they then set an FPS limit? is it suppose to be their way of saving energy?
As for 1080p..we have specifications for it..If i were to guess we just don't have the proper drivers...video decoding is done via the ARM Neon..so if anything 1080p would play slow..but it doesn't play at all...so its either locked out intentionally..or the driver is not configured to...I mean it can handle 720p at [email protected] reason why it can't handle 1080p at lower settings...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I just actually took a look at the S5PC110 User Manual and sure enough, 1080p encoding / decoding at 30 FPS is showing supported on the block diagram:
"1080p 30 fps MFC
Codec H.263/H.264/MPEG4
Decoder MPEG2/VC-1/Divx"
But then, directly below the block diagram, the following is shown:
"Multi Format Codec provides encoding and decoding of MPEG-4/H.263/H.264 up to [email protected] and
decoding of MPEG-2/VC1/Divx video up to [email protected] fps"
That's an odd discrepancy, particularly for an official Samsung processor owner's manual.
Also worth mentioning is that that manual makes no mention of OneDRAM in the memory subsystem breakdown where OneNAND, LPDDR1, LPDDR2, and DDR2 support are outlined, however, it's clearly listed as a supported memory type in the block diagram, and later throughout the manual. Hmm.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Hey Guys,
i was thinking about buying a new smartphone. Now that Samsung and HTC both have released their flagship device for 2013 I did some research and ended up with the Galaxy S3, the Nexus 4 and the Galaxy S4 in mind. I'm having some trouble to make up my mind about these smartphones. I compared them considering their performance. (excluded the S4 with octacore tho) and found out that basically performance benchmarkwise goes like this: S3> N4> S4.
I watched some video reviews as well and found out that these devices are pretty much equal in everyday performance. (opening apps and websites with maybe 1 second difference at most) The Nexus 4 stuck out a bit because unlike the S4 and S3 almost had no stuttering or dropped frames in the UI while even the S4 had a few.
So I'm not really sure whether the S4 is worth it for me, as I'm probably not gonna make frequent use of all the gimmicks and stuff. The 16 GB Nexus 4 is even a bit more expensive than the S3 now and the timely updates for the N4 are no dealbreaker for me as i will flash custom roms on the S3 anyway. The Nexus 4 however has no replacable battery and no sdcard slot.
Please correct me on these statements if they are flawed or simply incorrect.
Also I heard about the Snapdragon 800 and Nvidia Tegra 4 (maybe even the Exynos Dualcore of the Nexus 10 which is supposed to be released as Quadcore soon?) which are basically the next big thing when it comes to processors. I thought the S4 would make a HUGE jump (and the octacore version actually does) but it didn't. Now I wonder whether i should wait for the next generation of processors/smartphones. (I don't want to wait longer than Q4 2013)
I would appreciate your help a lot!
schnip said:
Hey Guys,
i was thinking about buying a new smartphone. Now that Samsung and HTC both have released their flagship device for 2013 I did some research and ended up with the Galaxy S3, the Nexus 4 and the Galaxy S4 in mind. I'm having some trouble to make up my mind about these smartphones. I compared them considering their performance. (excluded the S4 with octacore tho) and found out that basically performance benchmarkwise goes like this: S3> N4> S4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A little math lesson for you
the side with less goes here < the side with more goes here
the side with more goes here > the side with less goes here
Joe0Bloggs said:
A little math lesson for you
the side with less goes here < the side with more goes here
the side with more goes here > the side with less goes here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thank you for cluttering the thread and posting bull****
Why are you disregarding s4's superior screen and resolution?
schnip said:
So I'm not really sure whether the S4 is worth it for me, as I'm probably not gonna make frequent use of all the gimmicks and stuff. The 16 GB Nexus 4 is even a bit more expensive than the S3 now and the timely updates for the N4 are no dealbreaker for me as i will flash custom roms on the S3 anyway. The Nexus 4 however has no replacable battery and no sdcard slot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe you should wait for the "S4 Nexus" that will be released June 26th (if you live in the US, of course). It will aggregate the best in hardware and software and will come with an unlocked bootloader.
Between the N4 and the S3, if you're gonna flash a custom rom, get the S3 version with 2gb ram (without exynos). It has a removable battery and sd card slot which always helps.
Regarding the processors you've mentioned (Snapdragon 800 and Tegra 4), it doesn't matter much if the software is not optimized. Just look at TouchWiz, even with a brutal processor there are lags and stutters. IMO processors are powerful enough nowadays to provide a smooth experience in the UI and with games, but the software is not optimized and good enough to use all those cores wisely. OEMs further 'helps', clogging the system with bloatware.
pedrohz said:
Maybe you should wait for the "S4 Nexus" that will be released June 26th (if you live in the US, of course). It will aggregate the best in hardware and software and will come with an unlocked bootloader.
Between the N4 and the S3, if you're gonna flash a custom rom, get the S3 version with 2gb ram (without exynos). It has a removable battery and sd card slot which always helps.
Regarding the processors you've mentioned (Snapdragon 800 and Tegra 4), it doesn't matter much if the software is not optimized. Just look at TouchWiz, even with a brutal processor there are lags and stutters. IMO processors are powerful enough nowadays to provide a smooth experience in the UI and with games, but the software is not optimized and good enough to use all those cores wisely. OEMs further 'helps', clogging the system with bloatware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for the informative post
i have made similar experiences when comparing android to ios. the hardware is actually brutal but its not enough to compensate for the rather unoptimized software. unfortunately i do not live in the US and even if I did it wouldnt make much of a difference to me as i could flash custom vanilla android on the S4 anyhow.
schnip said:
i have made similar experiences when comparing android to ios. the hardware is actually brutal but its not enough to compensate for the rather unoptimized software. unfortunately i do not live in the US and even if I did it wouldnt make much of a difference to me as i could flash custom vanilla android on the S4 anyhow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand. Just be sure to get the S4 model with Snapdragon 600, as the 'S4 Nexus' will use it instead of the Exynos octa (no LTE). Then once its stock rom is released by fellow devs you can flash without issues
CorruptedSanity said:
Why are you disregarding s4's superior screen and resolution?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually i dont disregard it. for me the screen is one of the few improvements that really have a noticeable effect on everyday performance. unfortunately it comes at a great cost when comparing 300€(S3) to 600€(S4). I think the S3 is far more worth than only 1/2 of an S4
pedrohz said:
I understand. Just be sure to get the S4 model with Snapdragon 600, as the 'S4 Nexus' will use it instead of the Exynos octa (no LTE). Then once its stock rom is released by fellow devs you can flash without issues
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok thanks for the advice!
Edit: " get the S3 version with 2gb ram (without exynos)"
As far as my research goes:
The exynos is the quadcore version whereas the snapdragon version of the S3 is dual core.
The quadcore version usually does not have 2GB ram but i found some spec sheets that had Quadcore + 2GB RAM (LTE version)
Id say better have quadcore instead of dualcore and 2GB ram right?
Edit 2:
Unfortunately i cant get the 2GB version with dualcore in Germany.
I can order
Exynos Quad 2GB RAM LTE and
Exynos Quad 1GB RAM no-LTE
I dont really need LTE but is the 1 GB of extra RAM worth the 50€? (apprx 65$)
schnip said:
basically performance benchmarkwise goes like this: S3> N4> S4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
schnip said:
Please correct me on these statements if they are flawed or simply incorrect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Joe0Bloggs said:
A little math lesson for you
the side with less goes here < the side with more goes here
the side with more goes here > the side with less goes here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
schnip said:
thank you for cluttering the thread and posting bull****
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You asked to be corrected on your statements in the OP and that's what I did. Either you misued the comparison symbols or you thought both the S3 and N4 do benchmarks better than the S4.
I did what you asked people to do and an insult is what I get in return?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater-than_sign
Well,
the other thread is having discussion mainly about the Snapdragon 800 version, but since we Europeans can't have it, it is better to have the discussion about the Exynos models here.
Do you think Heterogeneous Multi-Processing Capability will be implemented in the Note 10.1 2014?
http://youtu.be/fLrSTJECVaU
http://youtu.be/8LNPxExkLMo
http://youtu.be/1t-6jqhELVk
The wifi only model will be exynos based. I live in the US and only want the exynos version.
Why do you think that we (Europeans) won't get the Snapdragon 800 version?
In Europe
WiFi = Exynos
LTE = Snapdragon 800
Live4Racing said:
In Europe
WiFi = Exynos
LTE = Snapdragon 800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't that true everywhere?
Speaking of the Exynos version. How does the community support for those devices stack up against their snapdragon
siblings (thinking of s4 and so on)?
Aletheia said:
Isn't that true everywhere?
Speaking of the Exynos version. How does the community support for those devices stack up against their snapdragon
siblings (thinking of s4 and so on)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
from what i have read and heard, the snapdragon siblings seem to have much more dev support than the exynos ones - that being said, with the new note 10.1, we might be able to expect some pretty damn good dev support so long as the rumors/claims about HMP being fixed are true. i think the biggest downfall of the previous octa chips is that they either use all 4 A15 chips or all 4 A7 chips, not a combination of them or anything else - the cache translation function is broken (i think thats what it is called... i may be wrong on the name).
but i think if they have fixed it, and if the new note actually offers HMP, then there should be some good dev support i would suspect - not everyone wants to pay for an extra contract for their device when they can just tether or hotspot to their phone, which they always have on them anyways.
On that *note* (pun intended) does anyone know if, on this new device, the 3g and lte models will have phone and sms functionality via headset of some sort? i can't imagine why would would purposely disable this feature, as the device has the proper radios etc for it. and if it is somehow disabled, does anyone know if that is something that can be brought over to the device with a new rom/kernel or other mod?
just my 3 cents, yea that's right, 3 cents....
asaqwert said:
On that *note* (pun intended) does anyone know if, on this new device, the 3g and lte models will have phone and sms functionality via headset of some sort? i can't imagine why would would purposely disable this feature, as the device has the proper radios etc for it. and if it is somehow disabled, does anyone know if that is something that can be brought over to the device with a new rom/kernel or other mod?
just my 3 cents, yea that's right, 3 cents....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Make a "note" to look into a program called Tablet Talk.
You can make any tablet into a sms/mms and phone... so worth the price.
Itchiee said:
Make a "note" to look into a program called Tablet Talk.
You can make any tablet into a sms/mms and phone... so worth the price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have definitely used and like tablet SMS on my new nexus but I just find it a hassle as the tablet always needs to be tethered anyways so I need my phone with me regardless. The idea behind having full talk and text on the tablet is so I don't absolutely need both devices with me all the time... I guess with a tablet that has 3g or late then you don't really need the phone with you anymore, and I can see an upside of this setup.... You can use just one phone number and have it accessible on two devices...just kind of seems ****ty to basically be forced into having two separate phone bills each month though if the option could have very easily been there to have the talk and text directly active and working on the tablet. I wonder if there is some sort of mod or hack that could be used to gain this functionality considering that on a 3g or late device the rradios are all there to support this.....
asaqwert said:
On that *note* (pun intended) does anyone know if, on this new device, the 3g and lte models will have phone and sms functionality via headset of some sort? i can't imagine why would would purposely disable this feature, as the device has the proper radios etc for it. and if it is somehow disabled, does anyone know if that is something that can be brought over to the device with a new rom/kernel or other mod?
just my 3 cents, yea that's right, 3 cents....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In all review that i saw, all tablet can phone and send sms/mms.
There are the apps for this.
So, i will buy the 4G version because i want the Snap800, and because it will have a lot of support then Exynos base...
Guich said:
In all review that i saw, all tablet can phone and send sms/mms.
There are the apps for this.
So, i will buy the 4G version because i want the Snap800, and because it will have a lot of support then Exynos base...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what is exepcted price difference between Wifi only and 4g
what is the support that makes u willing to spend that difference ! is it from Samsung it self, or free developers !
will it be in just Applications ! or the Android system updates running !
this is going to be my first device,and i am already highly considering the 3G version as i dont have smartphone, and hope i can use the note (beside its main functions) as a smart phone + to connect to net when no wifi around or on the road , with headset .. but i will wait till after release to see reviews about that .
if the 3g not making call as a phone, i will get wifi, and for internet connection i will use usb flash modem (by OTG adaptor)
Dr_Muhsin said:
what is exepcted price difference between Wifi only and 4g
i dont have smartphone, and hope i can use the note (beside its main functions) as a smart phone + to connect to net when no wifi around or on the road , with headset .. but i will wait till after release to see reviews about that .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The price difference between the wifi only and 4g models can be $100-$200 for 16GB models, and sometimes you can't even find the higher capacity models in 4g or wifi. It can be a hassle trying to find the model you want. Data plans for cell based tablets can be ridiculously high for 4g models so have a carrier in mind if you want to go the 4g route. Keep in mind Im using 4g here as a generic term for cell based tablet (4g/3g/lte). Im sticking with getting a wifi based note 10.1 this time around because I hope to use it for content creation and media playback.
Kernel source
So, is this good news as far as dev support for the Exynos versions is concerned?
sammobile.com/2013/09/20/samsung-releases-kernel-source-for-galaxy-note-10-1-2014-edition
In john lewis web its only left the white wifi version. I hope that its because they are receiving next week the new one
'Note' that the tablet with not ship with HMP/GTS out-of-box.
They were recently finalized. They will ship with cluster migration/core migration logic initially. Later there will be some kernel/patch upgrade to have HMP enabled.
CLARiiON said:
'Note' that the tablet with not ship with HMP/GTS out-of-box.
They were recently finalized. They will ship with cluster migration/core migration logic initially. Later there will be some kernel/patch upgrade to have HMP enabled.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i was reading that in the octa-core you could only have 4 cores being used at a time; and that the lower ghz quad cores were to save power.
but if android's cpu governor will fluctuate the cpu speed up and down based on the workload, what's the diff?
doesn't that make the other 4 cores useless?
so in effect a 2.3Ghz quad-core vs a 2.4Ghz quad+1.7Ghz quad would have the same performance??
now if you can use more than 4 cores at a time that's a different story.
am i way off base here?
-Tony
ncohafmuta said:
am i way off base here?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A bit. The architecture of each 4-core chip is very different; designed for different tasks. The weaker core is A7 while the more powerful core is A15. Your comparison is kind of like cylinder deactivation in a car's engine. In a V8, all eight cylinders are identical and they are shut off in pairs to save fuel and match performance to load. Think of Octa as a discreet 4 cylinder engine (A7) alongside a V8 engine (A15). Each, to your point, can be controlled so any or all of their cores can be active at a given time. The 4 cylinder's barely able to reach the low point of the V8's performance curve. Similarly, the V8 can't reach the 4 cylinders lower efficiency range. 85% of apps don't leave the A7 core so that's why it's more efficient than just shutting off some of the A15's cores; especially true at idle. It's actually a pretty neat approach to performance vs. efficiency.
BarryH_GEG said:
A bit. The architecture of each 4-core chip is very different; designed for different tasks. The weaker core is A7 while the more powerful core is A15. Your comparison is kind of like cylinder deactivation in a car's engine. In a V8, all eight cylinders are identical and they are shut off in pairs to save fuel and match performance to load. Think of Octa as a discreet 4 cylinder engine (A7) alongside a V8 engine (A15). Each, to your point, can be controlled so any or all of their cores can be active at a given time. The 4 cylinder's barely able to reach the low point of the V8's performance curve. Similarly, the V8 can't reach the 4 cylinders lower efficiency range. 85% of apps don't leave the A7 core so that's why it's more efficient than just shutting off some of the A15's cores; especially true at idle. It's actually a pretty neat approach to performance vs. efficiency.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FWIW the 2.4 vs 2.3 was a typo. Should be the same number there.
I understand where you're coming from, thanks for that. I just never heard it explained that a A7 at Clock X was different power usage wise than a A15 at Clock X.
If it is, so be it, that answers that. Would be interesting to see real world benchmarks behind it.
-Tony