Related
It's been bugging me, how the Kaiser has a 400 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM, yet still isn't quite that snappy. As a point of comparison, I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag. The Kaiser runs a stripped down version of Windows, yet isn't quite up to par with an inferior machine, based on specs. Is this due to processor instruction sets or source code efficiency? Why is there such a disparity in performance?
PointZero said:
It's been bugging me, how the Kaiser has a 400 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM, yet still isn't quite that snappy. As a point of comparison, I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag. The Kaiser runs a stripped down version of Windows, yet isn't quite up to par with an inferior machine, based on specs. Is this due to processor instruction sets or source code efficiency? Why is there such a disparity in performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe u should ask HTC.
The two systems are completely different - perhaps it's a bit like expecting a mouse to outrun a rabbit as it has a 500bpm heart rate compared to 130bpm.
Also, are you sure you can run XP well on a 233Mhz P11 with 128mb ram? I have excessive slowness on a 2Ghz Athlon XP with 1gb of Ram (depending on what I'm doing of course)!
PointZero said:
I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I call BS on that one... the smallest hardware I've tried XP on was a PII 400MHz with 256MB, and it was horribly slow and unusable. Next to that the Kaiser is heaven. I can run 10 programs simultaneously without problem and actually would have no reason to complain about it as a mobile device.
As DavidMc0 said, the architectures have nothing in common. Why does a 2GHz core 2 duo beat a 3.5GHz P4 hands down? There's not the same inside. Frequency can only consistently be compared in the same processor type.
I have been repairing and building various computers for about 10 years and i'll tell you that running windows xp with a 233mhz is nonsense. I actually installed windows xp on a customer of mine with a pentium 1 233mhz processor with 128mb of ram. That thing was insanely slow, everyway you look at it. The slowest processor you could run windows xp has to be at least a pentium 3 at above 500mhz. And yes, i even did benchmark, a 2ghz core 2 duo will beat my old 3ghz pentium D all day long.
Yes..that is not a fair comparision...compare apples with apples..by the way this test has already been done....( i.e Kaiser versus other smartphones) in the market...and Kaiser passed the test ( number 1) in all tests.
It could jusst be your phone...i have no problem with my Kaiser..
Cheers.
tytn64 said:
Yes..that is not a fair comparision...compare apples with apples..by the way this test has already been done....( i.e Kaiser versus other smartphones) in the market...and Kaiser passed the test ( number 1) in all tests.
It could jusst be your phone...i have no problem with my Kaiser..
Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The test results you write about sound interesting with kaiser coming first in all tests - can you post a link to them?
PointZero said:
It's been bugging me, how the Kaiser has a 400 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM, yet still isn't quite that snappy. As a point of comparison, I have a Thinkpad 770Z, which has a 233 MHz Pentium II processor and 128 MB of RAM. This is capable of running Windows XP SP2 without excessive lag. The Kaiser runs a stripped down version of Windows, yet isn't quite up to par with an inferior machine, based on specs. Is this due to processor instruction sets or source code efficiency? Why is there such a disparity in performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is probably the greatest ideia i've ever seen (not!)
So.. you got you PentiumII. I'll not dwell into cache diferences... busses... etc... i'll just point this:
Given that the Pentium 1 needed a heatsink and a fan (normaly)... do you think you would be able to just HOLD your kaiser if it was running a intel cpu like that?
Think before you post...
He would, because the battery would already be empty before it had a chance to heat up that much
Not to forget the slot-mounted PII is bigger than a Kaiser on its own, and still needs a chipset, graphics controller, sound chip to actually serve a purpose
Hi there!
As you can see in this thread my computer is killing me so I wanna change it with a notebook due their portablity.
A friend o' mine got a i7 1.GEN notebook (720QM as I remember) and it's good at single core uses due its turbocache. When turbocache channelizes all voltage to one core to do a single process like starting windows, no problem! But when it comes to multicore processing, whole turbocache system is a fail. Why would I carry a heavy-weighted junk when it can't download and play games together.
When I quit searching a notebook that has i7 I saw 2.GENs. So thats the question: Are they laggy as 1.GEN is? Can I play music and games together?
Waiting answer from you, mostly from people that has 2.GEN i7 notebooks.
sincerely, zeph
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
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
Hi everyone!
I want to buy the tablet Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 for its amazing screen, but the 64bits world is already here.
I checked that the only versions with a 64 bits cpu are just SM-T805S, SM-T805K, and SM-T805L with the Exynos 5433 in Korea.
Does anyone know where to buy it without going in person to Korea?
Or does anyone know if there is another version(s) with 64bits cpu and where to buy it?
Thanks!
Why do you want a 64 bit CPU?
codified said:
Why do you want a 64 bit CPU?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll bet he doesn't even know. Saying 64 "bits" tells me he isn't very knowledgeable with technology. He just heard it from somewhere.
bloodrain954 said:
I'll bet he doesn't even know. Saying 64 "bits" tells me he isn't very knowledgeable with technology. He just heard it from somewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or you can just be nice and explain to him why the 64 bit version won't garner him any real world benefits right now...:highfive:
wow!! how nice people are around here!!!
even if I dont have very high knowledge in technologies, you just have to write on google "64 bits android" to really know that 64 bits in android is not making any high difference now. So it doesnt really matter and whoever can know that. But at the same time, you can also see that there are some improvements and other "stuff" (typical word that some of my kind use) that will be useful soon while the rest of the techolopy (or technoloki... or how was the word? oh yes! = t-e-c-h-n-o-l-o-g-y ) is progressing.
I am not very advanced and thats why I am writing here, sorry that I didnt passed the test to write here.
Anyway, my only stupid reason why I want a 64 bits CPU is because of the money. Coz I dont have a lot. And I am the kind of person that tries to buy something that will last many years coz I cant afford to change deviced regularly. I bought my last laptop 10 years ago, it worked 7 years... and since then, there is no laptop. But my personal life is not the matter, and I am not asking about laptops or why I want a tablet now.
But I need a tablet that will last untill burns, and the "64bits world" is starting developing and in two years or so... I dont want to have a tablet that I cant use with something because 32 bits doesnt supported... but this is just an opinion anyway...
All 'new' tablets will last for a long time. 64 bit won't make a difference. If you feel it does, get the nexus 9. But even Google knows 32bit devices won't be going anywhere for a LONG time. Hence the reason the Nexus 6 is "only" using a 32bit processor. I'll be busy currently enjoying my brand new 32bit tablet
Just order online nuff said!
Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel stupid. I ask the question because a lot of people go blindly seeking the latest marketing term without realising what it means
64-bit processors are the new craze since Apple released one and had all the publicity about it
But it doesn't add much at all, and it won't future-proof your phone like you might think it would
This is a good article to read:
http://www.androidauthority.com/note-4-64-bit-32-bit-android-l-536280/
Anyway, the Exynos 5433 processor that you are talking about is technically 64 bit architecture but will only run in 32 bit mode, so you aren't really getting any of the advantages of 64 bit. You will have to wait for the Exynos 7420 for true 64-bit performance.
codified said:
Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel stupid. I ask the question because a lot of people go blindly seeking the latest marketing term without realising what it means
64-bit processors are the new craze since Apple released one and had all the publicity about it
But it doesn't add much at all, and it won't future-proof your phone like you might think it would
This is a good article to read:
http://www.androidauthority.com/note-4-64-bit-32-bit-android-l-536280/
Anyway, the Exynos 5433 processor that you are talking about is technically 64 bit architecture but will only run in 32 bit mode, so you aren't really getting any of the advantages of 64 bit. You will have to wait for the Exynos 7420 for true 64-bit performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right, 64-Bit processors are only really beneficial if you have the added memory to make good use of them, Apple's was only a gimmick when you consider they still only come with 1gb of RAM whereas most other devices not coming from Apple have 2gb or more.
lorinkundert said:
You are right, 64-Bit processors are only really beneficial if you have the added memory to make good use of them, Apple's was only a gimmick when you consider they still only come with 1gb of RAM whereas most other devices not coming from Apple have 2gb or more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats not true. A 64-Bit processor have more registers and handle processing generally faster than the 32-Bit, even if you don't run any 64-Bit code on it.
caravana said:
Thats not true. A 64-Bit processor have more registers and handle processing generally faster than the 32-Bit, even if you don't run any 64-Bit code on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not without more RAM it doesn't, I design mobile devices so I have a ton of experience.
lorinkundert said:
Not without more RAM it doesn't, I design mobile devices so I have a ton of experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RAM has nothing to do with the processors architecture, and with all due respect, your experience is not an argument. About the ARM 64-Bit architecture I can quote the AnandTech guys here:
Architecturally, the Cortex A57 is much like a tweaked Cortex A15 with 64-bit support. The CPU is still a 3-wide/3-issue machine with a 15+ stage pipeline. ARM has increased the width of NEON execution units in the Cortex A57 (128-bits wide now?) as well as enabled support for IEEE-754 DP FP. There have been some other minor pipeline enhancements as well. The end result is up to a 20 - 30% increase in performance over the Cortex A15 while running 32-bit code. Running 64-bit code you'll see an additional performance advantage as the 64-bit register file is far simplified compared to the 32-bit RF.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And here AnandTech does detailed arm 32bit vs 64bit performance comparison:
The conclusion? There are definitely reasons outside of needing more memory to go 64-bit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So yes, the ARM 64-bit architecture is generally faster than the 32-bit counterpart, because of enhancements that does not depend on the amount of RAM available.
lorinkundert said:
Not without more RAM it doesn't, I design mobile devices so I have a ton of experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a feeling you don't.
to take full advantage of a 64-bit processor you'd need an operating system that is also 64-bit as well, more than 4GB of ram (since 32-bit has a limitation of 4GB ram), and apps that are 64-bit.
For the pace of technology I'd say applications in the server-world (SQL and stuff) have fully taken advantage of 64-bit architecture for 10ish years, desktops maybe in the past 6 or 7 years.
It really depends on what type of programs you're using because certain things use the CPU, other's use the GPU. This being for games and such.
Apps like MX Player would take advantage of the CPU. ART in Android Lollipop will do us well. Bottom line- way too many factors but I don't think anything coming out on Android will make good use of a 64-bit architecture for a few more years. I mean, anything that would need 64-bits is really a battle with "is this a battery-friendly app or some intense app that should really be on a desktop?" or something. 64-bit just isn't needed right now. Personally, I like when developers focus on making programs that work best in a low power environment like a mobile device architecture.
You're buying an octacore tablet which is the most high-end device right now. I'd say Android and the hardware won't get much more fancier fancier for the next year or 2 and, TBH, this tablet won't start feeling sluggish for maybe 4 or 5 years as far as technology typically progresses.
Here's a video by Linus Tech tips detailing 64 bit vs 32 bit in a more layman term:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IknbgnJLSRY
Thanks for your messages.
After reading all and watching videos... I see that 64bit is not a big difference now, but it won't be for a very long time either... so it will be a little bit like the current situation in deskpots: even if 64bits is generally seen in everything, everything (almost) is still compatible with 32 bits and companies still give support to 32 bits...
and, on top of everything, if the "highest" option with this tablet is the exynos 5433 64 bits but only runs in 32bits mode... it makes no sense.
so, according to this, my question would be: how this tablet is going to handle Android Lollipop with the exynos 5420? I mean, how does the exynos 5420 (32 bits) handle android lollipop (64bits)?
There is a 64 bit option on my kernel configuration file for Note Edge 5433 and if enabled + unlocked 64 bit bootloader + firmware = winner. The 5433 Tab S is the same and has been deliberately crippled by Samsung to keep it on par with the crappy Snapdragon 805 which won't be ready for 64 bit until mid-next year. Even then, SD performance and potential doesn't even come close to the Exynos.