Related
I'm pretty sure I saw that on the side of the box at an AT&T store (it was far from me behind the counter though), but I've have never heard this about this phone before. Is the performance increase over the Tytn very noticeable to this effect?
stpete111 said:
I'm pretty sure I saw that on the side of the box at an AT&T store (it was far from me behind the counter though), but I've have never heard this about this phone before. Is the performance increase over the Tytn very noticeable to this effect?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's nothing on the device, the HTC box or the Internets that leads me to believe that that's true.
I just saw a news.com story a couple of days ago (cant find the link though) about dual-core devices.
There's no noticible speed increas on the Kaiser.
Also, see this:http://www.pocketnow.com/index.php?a=portal_detail&t=news&id=4554
s
Nope, but there are seperate CPU's the 2nd one runs the radio. Doesn't help WM6 speed, mabe it unloads it a little.
The side of the box DOES say dual core
I would scan the side of the box "Att White label reads ...400 mhz dual core processor..."but i dont need to prove it, do the research...even though it is prob. a marketing scheme!
shaharprish said:
There's nothing on the device, the HTC box or the Internets that leads me to believe that that's true.
I just saw a news.com story a couple of days ago (cant find the link though) about dual-core devices.
There's no noticible speed increas on the Kaiser.
Also, see this:http://www.pocketnow.com/index.php?a=portal_detail&t=news&id=4554
s
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regarding speed, you say there's no noticable speed increase on the Kaiser. I'd disagree there, the first and most enduring thing I have noticed is a speed increase (untweaked) compared with a heavily tweaked (for max speed) Hermes. That said though, that increase is not across the board in all applications.
Regarding whether it's dual core or not - well it just depends what you mean. Not perhaps dual core as we might normally think of it but rather a double processor function with seperate handling of some functions. That has advantages and dedicates processing to specific functions. In any case of course dual core is a much over hyped concept and for example a quad core can still be slower than a double or single processor. Much of this whole idea about cores is misleading and panders to those unenlihghtened folk who assume that the more cores you have the faster things will be. Very crudely put would you rather a dual 100 mhz core processor or a single 400mhz processor?
Mike
Its got one processor for PDA function and another for 3g... which actually means worse battery consumption... I heard HTC etc are working on a combined processor
And to answer the poster above, it actually depends what jobs I was asking the device to do...
unwired4 said:
And to answer the poster above, it actually depends what jobs I was asking the device to do...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, a wise answer.
Mike
There's a lot of talk about this subject, and from an architecture standpoint it depends on how you define "dual core". In modern terms, it means two processors with identical functions packaged together. However, that's only true of the last couple of years.
Back in the days of the 386, a separate processor was required to do floating point math. This co-processor (the FPU) was built into the die of the 486 chip. In the days of the Pentium Pro, the cache chip and its supporting logic was on-die, then removed in the Pentium II, then re-integrated in the Pentium III. The Athlon64 chip took the memory controller, formerly in a separate chip, and put it on-die to increase performance. The next generation Intel mobile processors will have an integrated GPU chip in the CPU (and AMD/Cyrix did the same several years ago). In the strictest definition, all of these are "systems on a chip" (SoCs) and are "multi-core" processors, as they take the functionality of two chips ("cores"), and integrate them into one.
The question is, when does a processor that can accelerate multiple functions simultanesously stop being "multi-core" and start being a processor that has a function built in?
The Quallcomm 7200 and 7500 SoCs have several "co-processors" built in. There's one for graphics, one for GPS, one for the radio, etc. Saying it's "multi-core" by modern standards is a stretch, but it does indeed have dedicated processor acceleration for various processor tasks. It's more in line with how some of the above examples work than "true" multi-processing like a Core Duo or Athlon X2 work, but it's there.
He's right, the side of the Tilt box says "QUALCOMM(r) Dual Core 400 Mhz Processor"
Pretty misleading. 2nd core doesn't operate at 400 Mhz, either (290-something, I think)
DLD
well I can say that coming from a wizard (200 mhz) ran everything to my kaiser (260 or 290 for the phone and 400 for everything else) its an incredible diference. on the wizard hit the hang up button 20-30 times LITERALLY and then it wil finally disconnect hit the hang up botton on the kaiser no mater what ur running it disconnects instantly. and I know its definitely capable of running games much quicker than my my wizard. also keep in mind the wizard was overclocked 252 with every tweak and the kaiser is stock.
A good discusion, if you look at Intel's roadmap they are heading in the direction of having 'core acceleration'. Theye are designing seperate cores for different tasks, so if you want a sql server you would have a core that's dedicated to windows, one dedicated to storage, and one that's dedicated to sql... or something like that...
But hey when you have 80cores in a processor you can specialise them I suppose.
Yeah, finally picked up the Tilt yesterday and what I thought I saw is what I definitely saw, as confirmed by exzist and RacerX earlier in the thread. Definitely an interesting discussion as to what that really does mean.
Hey all,
I am putting a HTPC together that will primarily be used with XBMC, but also be used to browse the internet and download films via lovefilm.com. Here is what I am considering...
AMD Llano A8-3800
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a8-3800.html
Gigabyte Motherboard - AMD A75, Socket FM1, DDR3 (GA-A75M-UD2H)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-358-GI&groupid=701&catid=1903&subcat=2058
Corsair Vengeance 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C8 1600MHz Dual Channel
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-298-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1517
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-368-WD&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=1953
OCZ ModXStream Pro 500w Silent
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-037-OC&tool=3
Lian Li Case (PC-C37B)
http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/acatalog/info_1194.html
For these simple tasks I am under the impression Llano will suffice. Should I be worried about the lack of a discrete GPU?
Also this will cost about £500 which is kind of pricey for a HTPC. Has anyone got any suggestions to reduce the price of the build?
Thanks for any feedback?
PSU and RAM is a bit overkill for a HTPC. Also, run LINUX if you wanna keep it low-powered. From what I hear, Llano has a great GPU but sucky CPU. It should suffice as a HTPC processor. I'd go for a lower end PSU and about 1GB RAM if Linux, 2GB if Windows.
Thanks for the good advice about the PSU and RAM.
I have heard that the LLano CPU is a little weak on other sites too. I was considering instead an Athlon II with dedicated graphics. It will cost a similar amount as this system.
I can even get the AsRock vision 3D for the same price...
http://www.asrock.com/microsite/Vision3D/index.asp?c=Main
There are just too many options...
edcoppen said:
Thanks for the good advice about the PSU and RAM.
I have heard that the LLano CPU is a little weak on other sites too. I was considering instead an Athlon II with dedicated graphics. It will cost a similar amount as this system.
I can even get the AsRock vision 3D for the same price...
http://www.asrock.com/microsite/Vision3D/index.asp?c=Main
There are just too many options...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3D is overrated. I'm assuming that you:
1. Have a 3D HDTV.
2. Have the 3D glasses
3. Have a desire for headaches.
Also, a lot will depend on usage pattern/behaviour. If you are only using it for some browsing (assuming social networks, youtubes, reading forums like XDA, some degree of flash playing), the Llano should be more than sufficient. It will also serve well in a light gaming mode (we're talking COD:MW2 probably). And if you're running Linux, I'd say that bumping to 2GB will make it a behemoth when it comes to webapps.
That said and done, what I suggested (Linux build and bumping it to 2GB) will be more than sufficient for watching movies and some light browsing with webapps. The Llano is not good as a CPU, but it is a real kicker when it comes to making a no fuss dedicated system (although it sucks when it comes to making a good gaming PC). I believe that many sites actually view it as a high potential processor for HTPCs. Just remember to properly cool your rig (silent cooling FTW) when building your HTPC (my brother's sucked because he used a 9800GT).
So... building your own (if you have the expertise or can seduce/befriend someone with the expertise) will definitely yield savings, benefits and earn an essential geek badge.
Linux is out the question as my Dad (who will be using the HTPC) has used Windows all his life and will not learn another OS.
I get your point about the 3D and I have no intentions of using it for now... but it will be there for the future
I believe that both a LLano based system and the ASRock Vision 3D will fit the needs of a HTPC. As they cost a similar price and I am comfortable building my own system I have both options open to me.
I guess what it comes down to is which system is better... Llano with A75 chipset or i3 with HM55 chipset? Any opinions???
edcoppen said:
Linux is out the question as my Dad (who will be using the HTPC) has used Windows all his life and will not learn another OS.
I get your point about the 3D and I have no intentions of using it for now... but it will be there for the future
I believe that both a LLano based system and the ASRock Vision 3D will fit the needs of a HTPC. As they cost a similar price and I am comfortable building my own system I have both options open to me.
I guess what it comes down to is which system is better... Llano with A75 chipset or i3 with HM55 chipset? Any opinions???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Llano.
It has similar processing powers to an i3, but trumps even an i7 when it comes to GPU power. As for 3D, when the glassless 3DTVs come out, the specs will be different. I get most of my home movies off the internet, and from what I understand, a Blu-Ray disc has about 20+GB on average on it, so go figure.
Thank you for the good advice. I am nearly ready to make my purchase. I have decided to go for a custom Llano based system pretty similar to the one outlined in the OP. I will follow the advice though to downgrade the PSU and ram. Just a few more questions pls...
I was hoping to avoid using a dedicated GPU but I just realised i'm not sure if the motherboard supports lossless bitstreaming. I have looked but couldnt find out. Here's the motherboard I have in mind...
http://uk.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM1/F1A75M/#specifications/#specifications
If this board doesn't support it I will probably get this GPU but I want to avoid it if possible...
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-263-SP
Thanks again for the help so far!
This situation just got a whole load more confusing
It turns out that the only way to get lossless bitstreaming with a Llano-based system is to use a dedicated GPU. This kind of defies the whole point of going down the Llano route as its integrated graphics was one of it's key benefits. Seeing as everyone says the CPU performance of Llano system is underwhelming I am seriously reconsidering the whole build.
Instead I could base the build around the H55 chipset as this does support lossless bitstreaming. I could then use the superior CPU performance of an i3, but would still require dedicated graphics to escape crappy Intel HD2000.
Bearing in mind that bitstreaming is an essential part of the build what would you do?
Edit: the H55 path really limits things like SATA 6gb/s and USB 3.0
edcoppen said:
This situation just got a whole load more confusing
It turns out that the only way to get lossless bitstreaming with a Llano-based system is to use a dedicated GPU. This kind of defies the whole point of going down the Llano route as its integrated graphics was one of it's key benefits. Seeing as everyone says the CPU performance of Llano system is underwhelming I am seriously reconsidering the whole build.
Instead I could base the build around the H55 chipset as this does support lossless bitstreaming. I could then use the superior CPU performance of an i3, but would still require dedicated graphics to escape crappy Intel HD2000.
Bearing in mind that bitstreaming is an essential part of the build what would you do?
Edit: the H55 path really limits things like SATA 6gb/s and USB 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm... I'll need to do a little homework first... I'll get back to you regarding the lossless streams
edcoppen said:
This situation just got a whole load more confusing
It turns out that the only way to get lossless bitstreaming with a Llano-based system is to use a dedicated GPU. This kind of defies the whole point of going down the Llano route as its integrated graphics was one of it's key benefits. Seeing as everyone says the CPU performance of Llano system is underwhelming I am seriously reconsidering the whole build.
Instead I could base the build around the H55 chipset as this does support lossless bitstreaming. I could then use the superior CPU performance of an i3, but would still require dedicated graphics to escape crappy Intel HD2000.
Bearing in mind that bitstreaming is an essential part of the build what would you do?
Edit: the H55 path really limits things like SATA 6gb/s and USB 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems to me that using an AMD Phenom/Athlon with a dedicated GPU will be slightly cheaper., although the whole rig will never fit in that casing...
I have decided to rule out the Llano system due to the complications with lossless audio. This now leaves me with an i3 system or Athlon like you suggested.
For an Athlon system I saw these parts:
AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 250 3.00GHz
Asus M4A88TD-M EVO/USB3 AMD 880G (Socket AM3)
These are cheaper than an i3 system for sure... as far as performance goes I am confident both the Athlon and i3 route is enough for a HTPC. I wonder about how their power consumption compares though?
edcoppen said:
I have decided to rule out the Llano system due to the complications with lossless audio. This now leaves me with an i3 system or Athlon like you suggested.
For an Athlon system I saw these parts:
AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 250 3.00GHz
Asus M4A88TD-M EVO/USB3 AMD 880G (Socket AM3)
These are cheaper than an i3 system for sure... as far as performance goes I am confident both the Athlon and i3 route is enough for a HTPC. I wonder about how their power consumption compares though?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMD usually has a lower power profile than Intel, although if you underpowered your PC the processor will have to work REALLY hard to keep up... depends a lot.
Currently, an AMD-AMD setup for CPU and GPU combo is more efficient than an Intel-NVidia setup, although for the mid-range PCs, it might be different. A key component of power draw and power efficiency is actually your PSU. Most of the time, the PC will be on idle/low usage. Having an 80+ rated Gold or Platinum goes a loooooooong way towards saving power.
In terms of performance, the i3 does not have much benefit over AMD, because the good techs are limited to the i5s and i7s. AMD only differentiates the core count and superficial unlocks.
DISCLAIMER: A little late on this, but: I AM A HUGE AMD FAN. Not that I blow, but I really like AMD, and have been using AMD rigs for as long as I can remember.
Well I think I have come to a decision... again. Almost every component is different now. Here's my new selection of components:
Intel Core i3-2100T 2.5Ghz
MSI H67MA-E35 Intel H67
OCZ Platinum 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-10666
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 6670 1024MB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
SilverStone Grandia GD04
OCZ StealthXStream2 400w Silent
I can get all of these for a round £500. Any last minute feedback from anyone before I buy it all would be much appreciated.
One thing that I didn't clarify with you. The service is movie streaming or downloading? Coz 1TB is mighty little for heavy downloading (trust me).
Although, from your setup, the parts look mighty fine to me. Just upgrade the CPU and GPU down the road and you'll have a mainstream gaming rig
Not Android related by any means, but just perusing the net I stumbled upon an article about a phone called the xpPhone 2 running Win 7 & 8.
The thing that caught my eye though was its combined storage capacity of 112gb. & 18.5 hours of talk time and the ability to upgrade the ram, all within a 4.3" screen.
Currently it's only available in China.
http://en.xpphone.com/news/kuaibao/114.html
I spoke to them
I already spoke to them and it seems like a very interesting toy/weapon. Being a road warrior this would really lighten the load. Will follow how it develops closely!
1 inch thick Phone with extra battery and packing a Netbook processor.
Sounds severely underpowered for Windows but an Intel Atom would smoke any mobile processor lol.
I doubt it. At 1.6 single core. Thing blows. My phone is faster than my netbook.
CBowley said:
I doubt it. At 1.6 single core. Thing blows. My phone is faster than my netbook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cores & GHz don't mean anything. x86 is a very fast, and faster than ARM. Arm just is better performance for power use. Plus you could install Androidx86.
Intel displayed something at ces that had a atom proc. If you watch mwc I bet they will have something about it too ...supposed to be bad ass
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Please dont believe that you will get a smartphone with this device.
Using xpphone1 showed me that it is a UMPC with a small phone-function. There is no automatic sync with outlook and no calendar with a reminder-function. The phone-software is very unstable and so you are not always reachable like using a "normal" handy. The camera for skype and photos is not in place, under the lens there is simply nothing. These are only examples out of the long list of problems. Questions to ITG (even if these problems are solved with xpphone2) are not answered. So if you need more than a technical gimmick any other smartphone will do a better job.
Since MWC is around the corner and Companies are already making announcements I ranted a bit about MultiCore phones. So like the Title says..
What do You think... Do Phones really need to have 2-4-6-8 cores?
My 2cents
To me the need for even two cores still seems over powered. My big complaint is that manufactures just want to ONE up the competition and add more and more even though it wouldn't be fully utilized by anyone in the foreseeable future.
For example. All these companies are slapping MultiCore phones and adding more ram and they aren't even really optimizing their software for the additional cores. It was android and it finally added MultiCore support with ICS, but companies were and still are releasing phones with 2cores running Froyo, Gingerbread that won't see ICS ever if not for devoted developers to Port it.
To me you can have the most fancy OS with all the Eye Candy you can think off and have it run off a Single(One) Core Processor just fine with no lag and 768MB of RAM and still have enough left for background apps if you focus on making your software efficient and optimized for that ONE core.
Look at WP7 sure its UI was over simplified, but it runs just fine with ONE core and 512MB of ram. And I've seen some very impressive Games run just fine on those phones. Unrelated to phones but look at how Windows (Desktop) handles RAM. Right now with just Chrome open with two tabs its using up 2GB of ram and this is a clean install. I just formatted my HDD and installed Chrome and updated to SP1 so there is no program prefetched. Ubuntu on this computer with just Chrome open only uses up 256-300MB of RAM because it was optimized for low ram machines. OSX86 SL on this computer only uses about about 300-500MB of ram.
So in the end all these multicore phones are doing is using up battery life to feed all these cores when the software hasn't been optimized for it. Now some processors shut off the additional cores when they aren't needed but even then only Games/apps that are aware of those cores will ever really use them.
Companies as they add more RAM and more cores add along with it bugged down crappy software and that just kills the purpose of all that power.
---
I just needed to spit this somewhere
There needs to be another high end mobile OS entering the market along with developers building more CPU demanding apps. That's the problem with android, its not universal like ios. And I don't want a apple vs android argument
Sent from the Nokia Galaxy Nexus S2 XL XE S X 3G LTE T-mo Plus with Beats Audio
I think they needs to focus on the CPU speed rather then cores. I'd rather have a dual core phone running at 3.5ghz then a quad core running at 1.2
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA Premium App
What I think a company should do is focus on
Software > Battery > CPU/RAM
Because if you make you software RIGHT and perfect it then right from the get go you will notice huge performance with a single dual core processor.
Just imagine HTC sense with the speed of stock ICS on the Gnex or any other phone with Dual Core 1GB ram!
If companies like HTC focused on improving their UI with performance in mind, CPU makers at the same time will evolve and develop better smaller processors and will be cheaper then making a monster out of a phone only to cage it with half as UI's that suck.... Cuz we all know that a Single Core 1Ghz processor from today beats the crap out of a similar spec one from early 2000's
I dislike Apple but i gotta give them credit for focusing on iOS more then the actual iPhone.. If Android makers did the same and improved their crapware we wouldn't call it that.
I heard the multiple cores end up saving battery, especially in regards to the Tegra 3 because it has the companion core to take care of easy tasks like email syncing while the screen is off or whatever. The extra cores kick in when they're needed too, they're not constantly running when there's nothing going on. Most of the time, the extra ones are offline (see screenshots below).
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA Premium.
Do we really need hexacore computers? Even though most software doesn't really benefit from them? The majority of computer games rarely put more than 2 cores to any worthy use, the OS runs quite the same with 2 or 4 cores in general and for the most part only intensive applications even benefit from it at all (photo, video, CAD, 3D and so on). We still get them though, and often enough they don't use excessively more power than the previous generation with smaller, more efficient technology. Also, try running your ubuntu setup with an 800x480 res and a comparatively weak single 1ghz, 512mb shared ram setup. It'll struggle for air.
It is good to move into this realm with phones. Play around with a Galaxy S, then with a Galaxy S 2 - both in their pure touchwiz form. The S 2 simply blows away the original. Virtually no performance hitches throughout any usage you can imagine, and this is just an upgrade from single to dual core. New designs don't use any more power than predecessors, and often save power as described above. 4 active cores when needed (completely shut off when inactive), and a seperate low-power single core when there is something basic? Genius.
I'm all for phones with as many cores as they fit, as long as the designs of tomorrow are like the designs of today. I don't see any reason why they won't be, so what's the harm?
i dont think we need 2+ cores
my nexus s out performs most dual core phone when i had it on stock 4.0.3 @ 1ghz
not im on a custom rom @ 1.4ghz... its even better
qaz2453 said:
i dont think we need 2+ cores
my nexus s out performs most dual core phone when i had it on stock 4.0.3 @ 1ghz
not im on a custom rom @ 1.4ghz... its even better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offence but I really don't think it will, maybe at benchmarking because that's not really a full test of speed.
Dual cores and 1.5ghz seems like all we need...
I am running 1ghz on my epic4g with a nice rom and i never really have complaints about the single core and the 1ghz it always works.
Dual core would satisfy my needs
sensation lover said:
No offence but I really don't think it will, maybe at benchmarking because that's not really a full test of speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Nexus S routinely beats SOME dual core phones with the right kernel and ROM. I should know, I have one. That phone with Trinity kernel is a beast.
Wasn't me!! I didn't do it!
The more the merrier!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
For a long time i agreed with you completely, thinking more than two cores was fairly unnecessary, but after having recently looked into Ubuntu for Android and the Webtop application in the motorola atrix, i thought if our phones our powerful enough (4 or so cores), rather than have that power needlessly sitting there have our phones be able to run full desktop OS's. Ubuntu seems like the key candidate here, as i did enjoy my brief stint on there.
So too many cores does seem unnecessary just to one up the competition, but if we use that power to have a phone and desktop computer in one, then i am all for it!
qaz2453 said:
i dont think we need 2+ cores
my nexus s out performs most dual core phone when i had it on stock 4.0.3 @ 1ghz
not im on a custom rom @ 1.4ghz... its even better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it gets a higher score in a benchmark that literally measures the frequency. I have a Nexus S and no matter how much i OC it doesn't compare to something like an SGS2.
Zorigo said:
For a long time i agreed with you completely, thinking more than two cores was fairly unnecessary, but after having recently looked into Ubuntu for Android and the Webtop application in the motorola atrix, i thought if our phones our powerful enough (4 or so cores), rather than have that power needlessly sitting there have our phones be able to run full desktop OS's. Ubuntu seems like the key candidate here, as i did enjoy my brief stint on there.
So too many cores does seem unnecessary just to one up the competition, but if we use that power to have a phone and desktop computer in one, then i am all for it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with this entirely. Android, in its current state, is a Phone OS. In time I hope to see it gain many Desktop OS attributes, and right now we can already see Desktop OSes run on the phones. There is no reason to turn Android into one, but more processor power means we can turn our phones into a mini-computer worth using at a whim.
Unlike what seems to have happened with the iPhone 4S, the android dual cores don't guzzle through the battery like no tomorrow. Battery technology in it's current state is also limited. You want more mAh? Buy a bigger battery. Anything else is more often than not just a scam.
I think not nessesary in more cores.Simply stupid marketing to get your money.
Give me more ram, give me more cores, give me a decent screen, USB host and native Ubuntu... That way
Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio using Tapatalk
Give me more batary life.
animal-on said:
Give me more batary life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, instead of making the specifications better, they should focus on improving the battery live. Really, 1 day is horse**** compared to the Nokia phones in the early 2000's..
My two cents:
I recently upgraded from a MyTouch 3G Slide to a MyTouch 4G Slide... going from a 600MHz MSM7227 Qualcomm proc to a 1.2GHz MSM8260 Dual-core SnapDragon.
Now aside from the obvious bump in speed, what impressed me the most was improved battery efficiency - partly from the proc, partly from Android improvements. From what I have seen of the new Tegra 3 SoC, it basically has four system cores and one battery saver core, that runs with minimal draw when the phone is idling.
As with PC procs, I think we'll see near future software and operating systems that are able to make greater use of multi-core setups, while saving battery life.
---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 PM ----------
Here's a better question:
Why are hardware manufacturers so stingy with RAM and ROM!?
I can't believe that HTC or Samsung or Nokia would pay all that much more for 512MB of RAM as they would 2GB of RAM, right?
It just annoys me that we still have current onboard memory restrictions with so many devices in 2012
It's simple.If manufecturers will equip devices so fast of big memory,2 Gb for example,not so many people will buy new phone or tab.They will be waiting,because it's devices will works very fine with any apps.
I don't think people need all these extra cores, the only reason people think they do, is because stupid interfaces slowing the sh!+ out of their phones, if companies start concentrating on simpler UI, the need for all this RAM and CPU power will be gone, it's all part of the marketing plan, make things slower, tell people they need more cores, sell expensive phones and profit like a boss
Im thinking about building my first gaming PC. I quickly threw some parts together and I want to see what you guys think. I'm also not 100% sure of everything I need to build from start to finish so advice/suggestions are greatly appreciated. Keep in mind that my budget maxes out at $1,000.
Also, how would these parts I've chosen compare to the PS4 in terms of performance?
Thanks guys!
Tower: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129021
Motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_re=AMD_motherboard-_-13-128-514-_-Product
Ram: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231314
Hard Drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236345
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202103
Why do i get a notification on tapatalk about this thread?
Sent From A Samsung Galaxy S2 With AOSB Project ROM .
Why isn't this in the dedicated Desktops & Laptops thread? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1765837
And I never did see the point of AMD/ATI for Gaming. The 'Powered by Nvidia' splashscreen in every game isn't there for decoration... You'll never be able to use PhysX, for instance. And a lot of games have issues with AMD.
As for compared to the PS4... Even an IntelHD (do not buy an IntelHD GPU) on an i5 will have a better rating than a PS4. The hardware in the 'new' consoles is severely outdated.
ShadowLea said:
Why isn't this in the dedicated Desktops & Laptops thread? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1765837
And I never did see the point of AMD/ATI for Gaming. The 'Powered by Nvidia' splashscreen in every game isn't there for decoration... You'll never be able to use PhysX, for instance. And a lot of games have issues with AMD.
As for compared to the PS4... Even an IntelHD (do not buy an IntelHD GPU) on an i5 will have a better rating than a PS4. The hardware in the 'new' consoles is severely outdated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
outdated doesn't matter because it's only needed to run the games
Sent From A Samsung Galaxy S2 With AOSB Project ROM .
DanielBink said:
outdated doesn't matter because it's only needed to run the games
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, in 720p at 30fps without AA, Dynamic shading and every other HD setting. I'm not paying several hundred quid for something my PC did 8 years ago.
Hello, please refer to Post 3 for a link to the **Desktops and Laptops Thread**. No need to start a new thread about the same type of subject.
Thread closed.