| Author |
P800 to Nokia 3650 Comparison |
winhack
Joined: Feb 25, 2003
Posts: 8
PM |
On 2003-03-01 12:51, ppcrockar wrote:
================
...a faster processor on a different platform doesn't mean faster processing. take a pocket pc for example, a 400mhz intel xscale processor on pocketpc 2002 os runs slower than the older 206mhz intel strong arm since it is not optimized....
================
There you are absolutely correct!
On 2003-03-01 12:51, ppcrockar wrote:
================
...Well, since the P800 and the 3650 uses the same CPU type the Mhz difference is a pretty good way of comparing the speed. When it comes to comparing an 400Mhz Intel XScale with a 206Mhz Intel StrongArm you can't compare them since it is not the same type of CPU. The XScale is a differnent cpu. The XScale requires OS & program support for it's true potential to be shown...
================
While I do not know the proc for the two phones, I will take your word on it. As for the part about the XScale and the StrongArm, you are correct. One part you left out, however, is that the 206MHz StrongArm is pretty much at the top of it's game in terms of performance. Yeah, Intel COULD make a faster one, but that's the same as making a faster version of a P3 or P4 processor.
The XScale, however, is just starting out and is underutilized--largely because direct support for all it's features is not yet implemented in WinCE/PocketPC as you so correctly pointed out. That means that a newer version of that OS with direct XScale support will run (from what I have seen, LOTS) faster than the current version of the OS running on the exact same processor. So the XScale has headroom where the StrongArm is already at it's ceiling. This is really no different than when the industry made the switch to the Pentium, Pentium II, and then later the Pentium 4 (which were all MAJOR architectural changes).
On 2003-03-01 12:51, ppcrockar wrote:
================
...When it comes to the P800 and the 3650 this is Symbian OS, ehich is nowhere near the resource eater like the M$ PocketPC OS are. The P800 cpu is alot faster than the 3650/7650...
================
You said above that the P800 and the 3650 had the same proc, yet here you are saying they're different. I presume the ONLY difference is that the P800's proc is just faster.
On 2003-03-01 12:51, ppcrockar wrote:
================
...And as it has been stated here the CPU speed does matter when it comes to multitasking. If playing for example mp3 in the background a faster cpu means that the rest of the programs are more responsive when multitasking...
================
It does and it doesn't. I can contradict your example easily. Try running Microsoft Outlook when it's trying to connect to an Exchange server that is down (not standard POP3 mail access, mind you--I mean a full Exchange server). It doesn't matter how fast my proc is or how many I have or whatever: The way Outlook is written, if it needs to talk with Exchange, but Exchange is not answering back, my machine's going to stop and wait until it gets that answer. Raw horsepower has NO impact on that whatsoever! So I have to disagree with you: processor speed is not the end-all be-all.
I can have a PC with two processors at 500MHz that run faster than a machine with one processor at 1GHz or higher. At the same time, you can have two machines with identical hardware and different OSes (or different versions of the same OS) that run this app or that app at different speeds.
My overall point here is that processor speed is one part of the equation, but not the only part or even the biggest part. Raw hardware speed, OS efficiency, app efficiency (and how it's written in general), and resource requirements/usage all are significant contributing factors.
On 2003-03-01 12:51, ppcrockar wrote:
================
...Th 3650 has nothing that gives it any advantage over the P800 (except price maybe). The P800 is on par or better in every area.
I know some people will say T9 makes the 3650 better. Well... how good is T9 with a horrible keypad layout?...
================
That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to that. Your opinion is based on YOUR needs and desires. If being able to change the phone's covers was a critical need for you (what if you don't like that shade of blue?), the P800 would have a major disadvantage. It's a silly example, I'll grant you, but it explains what I am trying to get across when I say that it's your opinion when you talk about P800 having everything over the 3650. What about if you were dead set against paying more than $400 for ANY phone? Then the P800 is out. Period. Everyone is entitled to your opinion, but you cannot presume to make a unilateral decision on which is better based solely on your definitions.
[ This Message was edited by: winhack on 2003-03-01 20:55 ] |
|
|
Coramoor
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
You have to agree that a 200MHz ARM9 processor is better than a 104MHz one.
16Mb Ram is also better than 8...
You could say that the os of the two phones is different and therefore the p800 doesn't benefit from more ram due to the os taking it up. But HEY! It doesn't. The p800 has about 7-9 MB of available ram while the 3650 has 3,4 or 3,6(I can't remember exactly).
AND. According to symbian the 7.0 and 6.1 os is not that far apart.
So if a game/app is optimized for 3650 and the same game/app is optimized for the p800. The p800 will win performance wise....
|
Raven
Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
Actually the P800 processor runs at 156Mhz. Michal Jerz, the admin of My-Symbian.com made a small program that reads the P800 CPU speed.
http://my-symbian.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2709&highlight=156mhz
carpe noctem |
winhack
Joined: Feb 25, 2003
Posts: 8
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-03-02 16:04, Raven wrote:
Actually the P800 processor runs at 156Mhz. Michal Jerz, the admin of My-Symbian.com made a small program that reads the P800 CPU speed.
|
|
Would that same program work on the 3650? |
Raven
Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
Yep
carpe noctem |
winhack
Joined: Feb 25, 2003
Posts: 8
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-03-02 15:53, Coramoor wrote:
You have to agree that a 200MHz ARM9 processor is better than a 104MHz one.
16Mb Ram is also better than 8...
You could say that the os of the two phones is different and therefore the p800 doesn't benefit from more ram due to the os taking it up. But HEY! It doesn't. The p800 has about 7-9 MB of available ram while the 3650 has 3,4 or 3,6(I can't remember exactly).
AND. According to symbian the 7.0 and 6.1 os is not that far apart.
So if a game/app is optimized for 3650 and the same game/app is optimized for the p800. The p800 will win performance wise....
|
|
Ok, I would agree with your post in general. If the ONLY difference was proc speed, then yes, the same app on the same OS with different hardware would run differently, I would agree.
The questions then become:
1) How much different (in reality) is Symbian 7.x from Symbian 6.x, and
2) The original point of contention on this part of the thread was multi-tasking multiple apps, not the ability to run any single given app per se. |
mariolouis
Joined: Nov 17, 2002
Posts: 387
From: SE to Windows Mobile
PM |
@Winhack
they are both symbian. but of different versions. it depends which is optimized for which versions of os.
This message was posted from a WAP device |
Coramoor
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
I windows at least. Multitasking is very ram dependent in my experience. And the p800 has a clear upperhand in that compartment. More than twice the amount of available ram.
And for example decoding mp3s takes up some cpu power(I remember my 486/66 MHz machine couldn't do it).
So if are surfing the web while listening to mp3s this might become speed hungry...
I'm fairly confident that the p800 will have a upperhand in this... Unless they make a very efficient program for the 3650... |
Raven
Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
I think that, as the S60 UI is smaller and more simple than UIQ, thus requiering less power to run, the 106Mhz processor is strong enough to handle the programs written for that particular platform and multitasking shouldn't be any worse than UIQ and a 156Mhz processor.
carpe noctem |
dantec
Joined: Mar 02, 2003
Posts: 264
PM |
Now the real question here... is how long is each of the processors pipelines... That is why a 1ghz Powermac can kick a 2.0 ghz's but in terms of speed...
You see the pentiums pipeline (tunnel) has twice the speed limit of the powermacs (double megahertz rating) but it is twice and a bit times as long (7 vs. 20 pipeline stages) - but when processors make a mistake in their guessing game (they try and prepare themselves for what you are going to do next) the pipeline drains, so the pentium gets farther and father behind in results because it's pipeline takes longer to fill.
don't know if i make sense... i can post a video later for you guys if i can find it. However this really is off topic - because as somebody mentioned both the processors are the same (i take that persons word on it) and therefore they 'should' under normal circumstances have the same number of pipeline stages.
[ This Message was edited by: dantec on 2003-03-02 23:05 ] |
lynch
Joined: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 3
PM |
I have been sitting here thinking about which device I should purchase, the 3650 or P800 as well as moving over to Sprint for the Sanyo 8100 (using T-Mobile right now). For the past year I have used a Treo 270 and the one thing I cannot understand, is why there are not new products coming out with thumboards?
I was hesitant before I got the Treo because of it being a wider device than most phones. While not perfect, I have really enjoyed the Treo over the last year. Using the thumboard for emails and SMSing is so much easier than both options that the 3650 and P800 are offering.
Besides Blackberry, Danger and Palm, why no thumboards from Nokia and SonyEricsson on phones? Is is because of size? The Treo is really not that much bigger than either device mentioned above. |
Rashkae
Joined: Jun 03, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
Nokia has the 9210i communicator.
No bluetooth, GPRS, etc however.
The primary reason is lack of demand. |
|
|
Posted: 2003-03-01 21:52
