Official TWRP Recovery Lands on Micromax Canvas Magnus

With the recent release of Android One, Micromax and MediaTek released fully buildable … more

Update Overload: SuperSU Heavily Updated

There are apps and apps out there. Very few can reach the level of popularity required to stay at … more

Lollipop Leak Available for the Sprint Galaxy S5

Since the Android 5.0Lollipop’s official release not too long ago, we’ve seen … more

CPU Spy Gets an Android Lollipop Makeover

At some point in the distant past, you probably heard of CPU Spy for Android by XDARetired … more

Welcome to XDA

Search to go directly to your device's forum

Register an account

Unlock full posting privileges

Ask a question

No registration required
Post Reply

asynchronous dual core vs others

OP Daimoncode

18th June 2011, 09:46 AM   |  #1  
Daimoncode's Avatar
OP Junior Member
Thanks Meter: 1
 
28 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jun 2011
I have a question about the 3D's dual core that I'd like more clarification on the vague answers I'm getting by searching this site and google. So I've read that the core is asynchronous so basically meaning the second core doesn't do much work unless needed as others like the tegra 2 and exynos have both cores running or something similar to that, and that this is affecting the benchmark scores. I also read that one would basically double the score of the 3D to get a more accurate reading. Can anyone confirm or further explain this?
DDiaz007
18th June 2011, 10:18 AM   |  #2  
Guest
Thanks Meter: 0
 
n/a posts
Yes, asynchronous is when something operates on another thread whereas the main thread is still available for operating. This allows for better performance in terms of managing tasks. Now just because it doesn't score high on a benchmark, it doesn't mean it is going to perform. Also this allows for better performance for the battery.

I haven't slept for the past 12 hours so if this doesn't help you, just let me know and I will fully elaborate on how the processor will operate on the phone. Now time for bed :'(

In short, asynchronous operation means that a process operates independently of other processes.

Think of transferring a file. A separate thread will utilized for doing so. You will then be able to do background things such as playing with the UI, such as Sense since you will be using the main thread. If anything were to happen to the transferring file (such as it failing), you will be able to cancel it because it is independent on another thread.

I hope this makes sense man, kind of tired. Now I'm really going to bed.

Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Last edited by DDiaz007; 18th June 2011 at 10:25 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post: [ View ]
18th June 2011, 10:24 AM   |  #3  
Senior Member
Flag Costa Mesa, CA
Thanks Meter: 157
 
1,916 posts
Join Date:Joined: Oct 2007
More
To be more specific by asynchronous they mean that each core can run at different clock speeds. Core 1 could be at 1.2 ghz while core 2 is at 200 mhz. Most multi core processors are synchronous meaning all the cores are running at the same speed.
DDiaz007
18th June 2011, 10:26 AM   |  #4  
Guest
Thanks Meter: 0
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by donatom3

To be more specific by asynchronous they mean that each core can run at different clock speeds. Core 1 could be at 1.2 ghz while core 2 is at 200 mhz. Most multi core processors are synchronous meaning all the cores are running at the same speed.

^This too

Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
18th June 2011, 10:41 AM   |  #5  
RVDigital's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 273
 
465 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2010
More
I was also very curious to learn a little more about the async cores and how it differes from a standard "Always-On" dual core arctechiure.

Thh first page/video I found talks about the SnapDragon core specifically.

http://socialtimes.com/dual-core-sna...ndbytes_b49063

From what I've gathered, it comes down to using the second core and thus more power, only when needed. Minimizing voltage and heat to preserve battery life.

The following video goes into similar and slightly deeper detail about the processor specifically found in the EVO 3D. The demo is running a processor benchmark with a visual real time usage of the two cores. You can briefly see how the two cores are trading off the workload between each other. It was previously mentioned somewhere else on this forum, but I believe by seperating a workload between two chips, the chip will use less power across the two chips vs putting the same workload on a sinlge chip. I'm sure someone else will chime in with some additional detail. Also, after seeing some of these demos, I'm inclined to think that the processor found in the EVO 3D is actually stable at 1.5 but has been underclocked to 1.2 to conserve battery. Only time spent within our hands will tell.




Another demo of the MSM8660 and Adreno 220 GPU found in the EVO 3D. Its crazy to think we've come this far for mobile phone technology.



What occurred to me is how complex Community ROMs for such a device may become with the addition of Video Drivers that may continue to be upgraded and improved (think early Video Card tweaks for PC). Wondering how easy/difficult it will be to get our hands on them, possibly through extraction of updated stock ROMs.

EDIT: As far as benchmarks are concerned, I blame the inability of today's bench marking apps to consider async cores or properly utilize them during testing to factor the over all score. Because the current tests are most likely to be spread across cores which favors efficiency, the scores are going to be much lower than what the true power and performance of the chips can produce. I think of it as putting a horsepower governor on a Ferrari.
Last edited by RVDigital; 18th June 2011 at 10:46 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RVDigital For This Useful Post: [ View ]
18th June 2011, 11:04 AM   |  #6  
Daimoncode's Avatar
OP Junior Member
Thanks Meter: 1
 
28 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jun 2011
thanks for the explanation everyone
18th June 2011, 08:01 PM   |  #7  
Harfainx's Avatar
Recognized Contributor
Thanks Meter: 613
 
101010
983 posts
Join Date:Joined: Apr 2010
More
The best demonstration is in the first video posted, notice when Charbax looks at the monitor. There on the top right are the frequencies of the two cores, and you'll notice the both of them jumping around a lot, independent of the other. Using the cores "on-demand" only when needed ends up saving a lot of battery power, but doesn't give you any performance loss.
18th June 2011, 08:12 PM   |  #8  
Senior Member
Flag Costa Mesa, CA
Thanks Meter: 157
 
1,916 posts
Join Date:Joined: Oct 2007
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harfainx

The best demonstration is in the first video posted, notice when Charbax looks at the monitor. There on the top right are the frequencies of the two cores, and you'll notice the both of them jumping around a lot, independent of the other. Using the cores "on-demand" only when needed ends up saving a lot of battery power, but doesn't give you any performance loss.

Actually I was thinking that not just the battery savings but there could be a performance gain. Think of this if the manufacturer knows they only have to clock one core up to speed when needed they can be more aggressive about their timings and have the core clock up faster than a normal dual core would since they know they don't have to clock up both processors when only one needs the full speed.
18th June 2011, 08:33 PM   |  #9  
mevensen's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 20
 
277 posts
Join Date:Joined: May 2011
More
I wonder if the drop to 1.2 GHz also serves to keep heat under control. It might not just be battery savings, maybe the small case of a phone doesn't allow for proper cooling to hit 1.5 safely.

I'd love to see some confirmation that the asynchronous nature of this chipset is what's responsible for the seemingly lackluster benchmarking.
18th June 2011, 08:55 PM   |  #10  
RVDigital's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 273
 
465 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by mevensen

I wonder if the drop to 1.2 GHz also serves to keep heat under control. It might not just be battery savings, maybe the small case of a phone doesn't allow for proper cooling to hit 1.5 safely.

I'd love to see some confirmation that the asynchronous nature of this chipset is what's responsible for the seemingly lackluster benchmarking.

The "horrible" benchmark scores are simply due to the tests inability to consider async core performance. Wait till the tests are able to take this into consideration.

Sent from my HERO200 using XDA Premium App

Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes