| Author |
Do we really need Quad core phones? |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_t[....]e_on_february_26-news-3689.php
With the soon to be announced HTC Quad Core device to emerged I have been wondering alot about this. Do we really need Quad Core phones?? Is it just me or is this a bit over kill?? As far as I can see even my single core Lumia @ 1.4ghz is enough. Surely in such small handheld devices dual core would be the limit. Or are manufacturers doing this just cos they can?? Where will the size of devices stop at with ever increasing power & batteries needing to be bigger?? Screens becoming HD quality which is seen on a TV on a small device will quad core be enough to run HD displays etc?? I for one think I will never need quad core in a mobile device. I barely even use my pc to it's full potential which is also quad core. I put the question to you do we need it do you need it?? I don't 
[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2012-01-20 19:30 ] Phone?? What phone?? |
|
|
Tsepz_GP
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
PM |
Do we need 1.4GHz phones??? We had phones like the N95 that ran at 300mhz just fine.
You must remember that CPUs arent just about UI speed, your Lumia may run fine on a single-core but can it handle HD1080P media? Can it run a complex game like GTAIII with minimal conversion as the iPhone4S and Galaxy S2 do? etc...For some people those things are important especialy for us "geeks".
At the same time that is simply how hardware is evolving, and to stay competitive manufacturers are willing to get whatever is the latest which at this point is Quad-core.
We dont realy "need" them, but thats where technology is going. Why stop when we can keep pushing the boundaries, its what keeps the enthusiam alive. IMO.
Phone: iPhone 15 Pro Max Black Ti 512GB
Tablet: iPad Pro 11” 2020 Space Gray 256GB
Watch: Series 3 Nike Edition Space Gray
Droid: Huawei Mate 40 Pro 256GB |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Good answer 
Phone?? What phone?? |
admad
Joined: May 26, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Poland
PM |
Well the good thing is, there won't be anything bigger than quad-cores for some time. Phone chipsets had a big gap for example N95 with 300mhz, PC at that time with 2GHz dual-core was something quite normal. It was a 13x difference in processing speed. Now with quad-core phones. The difference is around 1-2x in processing speed. It's a huge fix. I just hope that after core race there will be race for new technology and xenon flash  |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
To me if I'm to choose between a 1Ghz and Xenon, and 2 Ghz quad-core and LED flash, I'd go with the Xenon 1Ghz.. Preferably a WP though.. 
Two important points:
- Every couple of years, regardless of the tech department we're in, we always reach another tipping point that changes our use of the devices in this department, or opens a new dimnesion of functionality..
In mobile processing power, that was the 1Ghz chipsets..
Yes, multi-cores and faster clock speeds with time do enable extra functionality or capability over a single 1Ghz, but nothing revolutionary..
I opened a similar thread in this very section not a while ago.. And had very interesting links tackling this specific topic:
The new mobile spec race - Multicore processors and Clock Speed
- It's not only about clock speed and number of cores, the very basic architecture is meant for a certain purpose!
I don't know if many realise already, but the war between ARM and Intel that took place more than a decade ago and Intel emerging as clear winner, had recently just restarted and there are only speculations at the moment where it could lead us this time!!
ARM chipsets, SOCs, are meant to be very power efficient on the expense of performance, while x-86 architecture CPUs are all about performance!
So if you compare an ARM 1.5Ghz dual-core on a smartphone or tablet to an Intel 1.5Ghz core duo 2 for instance, the difference is still huge!
Heck even the Atom processors used in netbooks still outperform current batch ARM multi-cores by a considerable margin but the gap is definitely nearing between those..
This is another big topic anyway.. And what each end user needs depends really on the usage pattern.. This debate concerns tablets of course.. Specially with the coming x-86 W8 tablets later this year..
But regarding this very topic, I'm not against moving forward with the evolutionary process and produce better specced chipsets year after year, but it's the focus the media is putting on such a feature (chipset) is annoying to say the least! This focus is coming on the expsense of other areas which to the majority of smartphone users could be of more priority than the power of the chipset!!
But people are taken away by all this hype and can't accept to get a high-end smartphone without getting the best chipset in the market as well... Delusion..
Same happened with PCs through last decade btw.. We never learn! |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Yes,I would too as my WP is perfectly fast enough for what I do. I see that even my phone internet speeds never reflect on the processor only they reflect on network too. Pages on my N8 loaded just as fast as they did on a 1 ghz Samsung running Android that was my experience.
[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2012-01-20 22:56 ] Phone?? What phone?? |
Tsepz_GP
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
PM |
I cant believe that, the N8 has one of the slowest browsers ive ever used, were you using Opera Mini on it? As then id totaly agree.
The thing is about web browsing is its down to a number of things, some of them being:
1. How the browser is coded and set up
2. The sort of network speeds your phone is capable of.
The browser could be coded to get 40% of the data then begin displaying the page in , and that depends on how fast it can get the data so this kind of nullyfies the speed of the CPU. What matters is how smooth, fast and functional the browser is.
Ive noticed between my GS2 and X10 that the X10 in its browser begins loading data as it gets it, whilest my GS2 will gather the data up until i guess 25%? Wild guess, and it will begin displaying, in the end though the GS2 manages the pages very well with much faster and smoother handling of Flash, HTML5 and Javascript, even while it loads the page the GS2 browser is much better to browse, where the CPU/GPU REALY helps is with handling animation, flash and zooming.
Phone: iPhone 15 Pro Max Black Ti 512GB
Tablet: iPad Pro 11” 2020 Space Gray 256GB
Watch: Series 3 Nike Edition Space Gray
Droid: Huawei Mate 40 Pro 256GB |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
No the updated browser in Anna and it loaded pages very fast. That is the truth
Phone?? What phone?? |
djin
Joined: Jun 13, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM |
if i am getting a quad core phone at the same price as dual core or single core then i would prefer them. Comparing x86 quad core with an arm9 quadcore is silly, mobile cpu's are still way behhind desktop cpus. more processors with a good os management will mean more efficiency as cores will run at lower clock speeds requiring lesser power. The main problem now is the screen (and os) efficiency which imo uses more power than the cpus itself on average basis.
Xperia T + N 96 R.I.P Desire  |
razec
Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Mars
PM |
QuadCore right now is a gimmick, but as new SoCs with powerful graphics usually came with >2 integer cores It is inevitable that we need them, but then again there will also be redundancy. Personally I would be more than happy enough with a dual core SoC with power gatin; something like what we've seen in recent Intel/AMD processors, I actually hated the heterogenous computing which is applied to our modern SoCs (combining GPU/ IMC/ Interger Cores/ FPU on one die) since we have no choice but to get what we don't need just because "that" thing had the one we needed more. that's why I always prefer using desktop over laptops as their modular nature enables me to pick the hardware I would needing the most.
10 years at Esato |
jplacson
Joined: Apr 21, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM, WWW
|
Currently... We need more efficient coding more than we need 4 cores. We need better battery tech more than we need 4 cores.
|
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Yeah I was always thinking that too. Battery life is still a major hurdle.
Phone?? What phone?? |
masseur
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney, London
PM |
On 2012-01-21 06:54:32, jplacson wrote:
Currently... We need more efficient coding more than we need 4 cores. We need better battery tech more than we need 4 cores.
interesting comment about more efficient coding, and as a developer myself I'm curious if you have access to android/iOS/Windows mobile sources that brings you to this conclusion?
I'm not familar with android SDK but the iOS SDK makes coding VERY efficient unless you are a stupidly bad programmer that goes out of their way to write bad code.
In regards to batteries, thats always the case but in my experience, multiple cores generally bring better battery life.
|
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Well an example of bad programming was actually a case in the Nokia Lumia recently but has been resolved. The battery life was quite poor due to apps were not getting the full capacity from the battery. Nokia released the update the other day and now battery life is a million times better. Its excellent now.
Phone?? What phone?? |
masseur
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney, London
PM |
ah, so this was meant at operating system level rather than app level.
There is certainly more opportunity for bugs at that level, and indeed many iOS upgrades include fixes to the API's and lower levels, I'll grant you that.
I'm a firm believer in Moore's law and believe we'll need quad core, and more, as our device needs and speed requirements increase. eventually we won't be counting cores as I believe its largely a marketing thing. we'll have some other standard by which to compare processors.
|
|
|
Posted: 2012-01-20 20:29
