Which Processor is faster & better

[salehjs]

"Intel Bulverde 520 MHz"
The one in the Universal

OR


"Qualcomm MSM7201A 528 Mhz"
in the new HTC HD unit


I feel they are the same. Am I right?

[Midget_1990]

qualcomm is much better

Its similar the difference between a 2.5ghz Pentium 4 and a 2.5ghz Core2Solo

[l2tp]

i don't think that core2solo and pentium4 with ht much differ

[wuzy]

i don't think that core2solo and pentium4 with ht much differ

Google up "Instructions per second" and you'll understand.
The Netburst architec of P4 is one of the worst example in history of it. A failure by engineering standard.

[genetik_freak]

The PXA270 Processor in the Universal actually runs at 624mhz and is underclocked. The HTC X7500 uses the same CPU running at 624mhz. It is clearly the better CPU.

[sonus]

The PXA270 Processor in the Universal actually runs at 624mhz and is underclocked. The HTC X7500 uses the same CPU running at 624mhz. It is clearly the better CPU.

Very, very wrong.

I wouldn't say that the Intel two processors are exactly the same, with one just being underclocked via software. Notice how intel puts out multiple pentiums of a given generation at different speeds? Would you venture to say that all those chips are the same too?

Also, clock speed is a poor metric when comparing chips from different companies. PDADB.Net says that the Intel chip has a ARMv5TE instruction set and the Qualcom chip has a ARMv6 instruction set. The Intel is a generation behind.

Comparing
Wikipedia says
Main article: Megahertz myth
The clock rate of a computer is only useful for providing comparisons between computer chips in the same processor family. An IBM PC with an Intel 486 CPU running at 50 MHz will be about twice as fast as one with the same CPU, memory and display running at 25 MHz, while the same will not be true for MIPS R4000 running at the same clock rate as the two are different processors with different functionality. Furthermore, there are many other factors to consider when comparing the speeds of entire computers, like the clock rate of the computer's front side bus (FSB), the clock rate of the RAM, the width in bits of the CPU's bus and the amount of Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 cache.

Clock rates should not be used when comparing different computers or different processor families. Rather, some software benchmark should be used. Clock rates can be very misleading since the amount of work different computer chips can do in one cycle varies. For example, RISC CPUs tend to have simpler instructions than CISC CPUs (but higher clock rates), and superscalar processors can execute more than one instruction per cycle (on average), yet it is not uncommon for them to do "less" in a clock cycle. In addition, subscalar CPUs or use of parallelism can also affect the quality of the computer regardless of clock rate.

[genetik_freak]

Sonus you are correct about the Mhz comparison. However, the PXA270 in the Universal can be safely "overclocked" to 624Mhz because the chip is designed to max out at that speed.

I would still like to see some benchmark tests between the 624Mhz PXA270, and the 528Mhz Qualcomm MSM7201A.

Generations aside, I can't see the Qualcomm chip outperforming the Intel Chip by much, if any. Also, it should be noted that the PXA270 can be scaled, not sure if that is true for the MSM7201A.

[wuzy]

The other catch phrase is "Performance per watt". I bet the MSM7201A has a huge advantage over PXA27x in that, mainly due to newer manufacturing process.

[genetik_freak]

That may be true wuzy, but considering the PXA270 is almost 5 years old and still being used in new devices should tell you plenty about its capabilities and performance.

[Falk]

Not really... It does, however tell a lot about the stinginess of device manufacturers. :P

As for the overclocking, not every Universal can run 624 MHz without crashing because the CPUs are going through a selection process after manufacturing and there is simply no reason to use the best ones for a device that doesn't need them running at full speed.

[genetik_freak]

The crashes are usually the result of the type of program used to overclock and also the rom. For the most part, people have found that 624mhz is pretty stable, inlcuding myself. Some have even pushed it beyond that speed, but that's another story...

Also take this into consideration:

The Universal has been on the market since 2005, almost 4 years now. By industry standards, it should be obsolete. Why is it not then? Simply, it is quite inexpensive compared to the newer devices having similar features, sometimes less. When it comes to performance vs. price vs. features, you just cannot beat the value of the Universal and its blistering fast 520/624mhz PXA270 CPU! The PXA270's performance is only rivaled by its bigger brother, the 800Mhz PXA320 which has made its way into some newer devices already.

[wuzy]

That may be true wuzy, but considering the PXA270 is almost 5 years old and still being used in new devices should tell you plenty about its capabilities and performance.

Try out a Diamond/Touch Pro with Opera9.5 the next time you see one and notice the speed difference.
On MSM7201A compared to our PXA27x it's a lot more smoother.

The lack of driver for MSM7200 on a lot of devices released last year tainted our perception on the new generation chips I think.

Touch HD vs. ASUS Galaxy7 at end of the year... hmmm

[genetik_freak]

I think you're missing the point wuzy.

I know there are newer devices out now that can deliver slightly better performance in some areas than the Universal, but considering how old our device is, it is to be expected. All I'm saying is that given the age of the Universal compared to what's out there now, The Universal has held up well. Furthermore, with all the new cooked roms popping up, you can expect the Uni to live even longer!

[Falk]

Take a look at H.264 decompression and real high performance tasks and the PXA270 looses so badly against the PXA320 that it is not even funny anymore... ;)

Why does the Uni keep up with most software? Because most programs are written for the old ARMv4 instruction set, thus wasting a lot of CPU cycles on newer processors that have already moved on. Apart from that the average application simply does not need that much CPU power to begin with.

The Uni held out well in a market that is very slow to adapt new technologies to begin with. The Axim x50v had a dedicated graphics chip at the end of 2004 - how many applications make use of that today? Only some games (ports, emulators) and media players. For those alone the Axim has held out better than the Uni though as it is still one of the best performing PPCs on the market.

Our little one will be around for quite a while, but it is far, far away from what nowadays devices can offer and it shows if you run anything beyond mail and office apps on it.

[salehjs]

I feel from your input above that "Qualcomm MSM7201A 528 Mhz" has higher performance, clock rete, Instructions per second, & Performance per watt when compared to the "Intel Bulverde 520 MHz" about 2:1 am I right ?


Another Question:

What is the highest speed Processor available for the PDA industry today?


Best Regards.

[Falk]

IMHO the ARM Cortex (http://www.arm.com/products/CPUs/families/CortexFamily.html) processors are very far up the ladder when it comes to performance and energy consumption. The Pandora (http://www.openpandora.org/) makers claim 10 hours of runtime for their device. Together with its media chip this little bugger is capable of decoding 720p HD video streams (take a look at the Archos 5 (http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5/index.html?country=global&lang=en))

I am not sure if the MSM7201A chipset's CPU alone reaches twice the performance of the Uni, but you will see a huge difference in apps that support and need the latest in CPU architecture (media players & games). If (one way or the other) the 3D capabilities can be put to use you will probably see more than a 2:1 performance boost.

[Wexx]

The sad truth is the Universal is one of the slowest VGA devices around. Especially considering lack of the graphical accelerator (which was even present in prototypes).

[Falk]

Too bad the dedicated 3D chip didn't make it into the final design. But it's still better than having a 3D accelerator without drivers! I have a Sharp EM-ONE here with a GoForce 5500 that could theoretically accelerate many video formats. The sad truth is that because there are no drivers no media player can make use of the chip. Even worse: Because the graphics chip still controls the display video is even slower because the optimized X-Scale drivers can't be used. It's like Sharp and NVidia wanted to punish users double ;) So, as bad as it is, the Uni is not the worst device out there!

[breckbit]

I wonder why there´re no x86 cpu´s placed in mobile devices yet. maybe because of the high power consumption? x86 cpu´s running at 528mhz would be more powerful than arm cpu´s. furthermore the device could run x86 os like xp embedded with more features and capabilities...

[Wexx]

x86 CPU enabled systems are still too much power hungry and too much complicated to be used in such a small device (sounds weird when talking abut HTC Universal, doesn't it).

[wuzy]

As Wexx said, getting a x86's TDP under 1W is virtually impossible with today's technology.
And that's just the CPU alone. A SoC (system on chip) for x86 still isn't commercialised yet and is also well over 1W TDP.
This is compared to our ARM SoC chips which have a TDP of ~500mW at max.

[wuzy]

Another Question:

What is the highest speed Processor available for the PDA industry today?


One that's available on a WinMo device, probably the PXA320 800Mhz found in the upcoming ASUS Galaxy7.

[salehjs]

What about this processor "Samsung S3C6400 533 MHz Processor" compared to the above two. This is available in Eten glofiish DX900 devices. Is it any different? Higher or lower when compared to the other two processor.



Regards