Dual core or quad core
- Thread starter bdfull3r
- Start date
people would tell you to get the quad, but personally I wouldn't cause
a : No app needs THAT much power yet, ( I might be wrong here. )
b : Battery life.
a : No app needs THAT much power yet, ( I might be wrong here. )
b : Battery life.
I would tend to agree with you.
Especially if your not worried about games.
Sent from my G2X.
Rocking stock CM 7.2.0-RC1
While I agree with the guys above, but I'm also in the same boat as the TC. I'm currently upgrade eligible and I've thought about buying a dual-core phone as I currently have an Aria but I think I've decided to wait until the Galaxy S3. If any of the rumors are true about it, it wont be out of date by my next upgrade.
The only "announced" quad cores are the huwai whatever its called(sorry dont remember the name of the phone). And the htc one x. Unfortunatly the htc will not have a quad core in america yet because the tegra3 is not lte compatable so i think we all gonna have to settle for dual core this year. I could be wrong but it seems like we wont get a quad for a while yet.
Sent from my PG06100 using XDA
Sent from my PG06100 using XDA
Luckily I just upgraded to the Samsung Glide in November but I know what you mean. Why go Dual core if you can get Quad core and be set for a good amount of time. The only thing I worry about quad core is will it eat up battery power?
I'm using quad core. i feel ok
Vietnam holidays-Red dragon Halong bay
Song Xanh Sampan Cruise Mekong
Vietnam holidays-Red dragon Halong bay
Song Xanh Sampan Cruise Mekong
Last edited:
What about Four+1?
What about 4-PLUS-1 technology? Any idea whether such systems actually make things run more efficiently using only 1 core (the "ninja" core) for low-end tasks? No idea about this, just floating it to see what news there is out there about this technology.
What about 4-PLUS-1 technology? Any idea whether such systems actually make things run more efficiently using only 1 core (the "ninja" core) for low-end tasks? No idea about this, just floating it to see what news there is out there about this technology.
K
Killbynature
Guest
Dual core most people will tell you quadcore is faster than dual core this is false. Just because you have two more of something doesn't mean anything if you can not use it properly. This is why tegra 3 as you see gets beat by Qualcomm krait (dual core) and Ti omap 5 (dual core). Its not about how many cores its about efficiency. Nvidia pretty much doesn't know what they are doing still in the phone market.
Quad core on a phone is not required imo.
I would stick with a dual core (My Galaxy SII has never given me any trouble) - quad core is pricy and no real need for it at present. But you can always do a future investment since you will eventually want a quad core.
I am personally waiting till my quad core phones drop in price and are required.
I would stick with a dual core (My Galaxy SII has never given me any trouble) - quad core is pricy and no real need for it at present. But you can always do a future investment since you will eventually want a quad core.
I am personally waiting till my quad core phones drop in price and are required.
The note does look sweet but my luck sprint wont get it and htc said the one x will be the fagship phone for this year
Sent from my PG06100 using XDA
Sent from my PG06100 using XDA
when android can fully utilize two cores, then we'll talk. Until then this is pointless. Quad core = less battery
Why no three cores?
I would like an upgrade as well lol, even if it means 1GHz Single core as I am currently surviving on 528MHz OC'ed to 692MHz (ofc single core) lol
It can handle everyday tasks all right but when you mention 3D games it dies (no gpu)
I would like an upgrade as well lol, even if it means 1GHz Single core as I am currently surviving on 528MHz OC'ed to 692MHz (ofc single core) lol
It can handle everyday tasks all right but when you mention 3D games it dies (no gpu)
The thing is, the HTC One X in the UK can be brought for £28.50 a month - I would have to pay more than that for the Galaxy Nexus. Quad core phones are no more expensive to buy than dual core - phone manufacturers realise that at present, they simply don't have a market for constant £41 on free prices.
K
Killbynature
Guest
For the people who say quad core means less battery are wrong. Nvidia is still using
A9 architecture and 40 mn. Ti omap5, exynos (5, something), Krait, all beat tegra 3 quad core technology. Ti omap 5 and krait are using 28mn and exynos supposedly using 32mn. All of these processors are a15 which pretty much destroys nvidia a9 architecture. They also use less power voltage and completing the same task. Compared to tegra 3.
A9 architecture and 40 mn. Ti omap5, exynos (5, something), Krait, all beat tegra 3 quad core technology. Ti omap 5 and krait are using 28mn and exynos supposedly using 32mn. All of these processors are a15 which pretty much destroys nvidia a9 architecture. They also use less power voltage and completing the same task. Compared to tegra 3.
Last edited:
Quad core is pointless if you don't have the battery to back it up. The Razr Maxx has a 3,300mAh battery. That should have been available a long time ago. Companies keep designing phones with bigger screens, more powerful processors, and energy-draining 4G LTE. This is all fun and well, but the battery is the most important part and need to be worked on more.
Similar threads
Top Liked Posts
-
There are no posts matching your filters.
-
7Honestly... Every time someone says that buying a quad-core future-proofs your phone makes me want to do a -facepalm- the size of Texas....
Quad-cores have weak cores! Tegra 3 is an A9 where the strongest core is 1.4. In comparison, Krait S4 is an A15 where both cores are 1.5. In real life testing, Krait S4 gives twice the performance of Tegra 3.
99% of everything you do on your phone only needs 1 core. Developers won't bother to make their apps multi-core capable because it won't improve the performance at all! And even if Android 5.0 is optimized for multiple cores, only HD gaming will see any improvement from it.
It's like buying your grandmother a Ferrari. Quad-cores have all this "potential" that they're trying to convince you of so you go out and buy their product. But like your grandmother, who'll never try to push past 60 in her Ferrari, a mobile device simply won't see the use of a quad-core engine.
One possible exception. One single possible use of quad-cores in everyday phone use is battery power. Specifically, A fully optimized OS can split all workload between all the cores, dividing your battery consumption between them. So a single core device running at 100% uses 4 times the battery power of a quad-core device running at 25% on all cores. But Tegra 3 doesn't support this! Tegra 3 cores run all or nothing, it's just the way they're designed. Krait, on the other hand, has dynamic voltage, so they can actually do this to save battery power!
If I ever get a quad-core device, it will never be a Tegra core. The only possible situation where having a quad-core CPU on your phone makes actual sense, is if Krait makes a quad-core version of their flagship CPU.
This conversation should not be on the benefits of quad-core vs. dual-core. While informative, that conversation would have no real world benefit to those looking to buy a new phone. What is really relevant information however, is a comparison between the Krait S4 chip and the Tegra 3 chip. It does no good to make vague references to the "potential" of quad-core devices, without considering what it is we will actually have in our hands in the end.
You can brag all you want about how many cores you have in your Tegra 3 device, but it won't change the fact that my Padfone running Krait S4 will still run miles around it, no matter how much you try to "optimize" that poorly designed Tegra 3 chip. Four sedans will never be as fast as two Lamborghinis.5I think benchmark will tell you which is better. Just wait for reviews
You can't judge technology by it's benchmark scores alone. Let me try and make a good analogy to explain this....
Let's say you're shopping for cars. Car 1 (Tegra 3) has a much higher top speed than Car 2 (Krait). It can go up to 300 miles an hour while Car 2 can only go up to 200. Judging by that fact alone, it's "obvious" that Car 1 is better.
But, don't roads have speed limits? What's the point of a car that can go to 300 miles per hour if the highest possible speed limit is only 70? I doubt you'd ever get a chance to go 300 miles an hour, even if the benchmarks say that you theoretically could.
This is the limitation of the Android Market. Developers won't want to make an app that takes full advantage of Tegra 3 because if they did so their app wouldn't be able to sell to weaker phones. Tegra 3 will be a small part of the Android community, even if there was no Krait to counter it, simply because it's the expensive high-end phone. Developers will always prefer making $1 dollar on 10 million devices than $20 on 100,000.
Now, let's consider other factors. When you drive, you're constantly accellerating and decelerating. Stop light to stop light or whenever you take a turn. Let's say Car 1 goes from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds, while Car 2 goes 0 to 60 in 6 seconds. Car 2 will be much more useful for your daily driving needs. If you race from stop light to stop light, Car 2 will always get there first. In that same way, Krait is a more advanced chip than Tegra 3.
Let's consider fuel efficiency. Tegra 3 has that huge top speed. But in return, if you want to go that fast you burn through your gas like nothing else. Car 1's engine goes at 15 miles per gallon. Car 2's engine, on the other hand, gets 30 miles per gallon. Therefore, you'll need to refuel on Car 2 only half as much as Car 1. Car 2 is twice as fuel-efficient as Car 1.
Tegra 3 is built at 40nm while Krait is built at 28nm. This results in the fact that, when the task is not the pinnacle of HD gaming, for any given task compared between Tegra 3 and Krait, if the task is multi-threaded, Krait and Tegra 3 will both finish the task at the same time, but Krait will use only half the battery power Tegra 3 needed to do so.
If that same task is not multi-threaded, as 99% of Android apps aren't, Krait will finish that task in half the time as Tegra 3 while still only using half the battery power.
If you don't pay attention to anything else about this post, read the sentence right above this one. Then read it again.
Any multi-threaded benchmark will show that Tegra 3 is the "stronger" device, but the environment is not optimized to take advantage of that power! Just like both of the cars above being limited to the speed limit on the highways you'd drive them on, the power of the Tegra 3 engine will be wasted by the environment that surrounds it.
You wouldn't get a special exemption from speed limits just because you have a very fast car, so why expect that to occur when buying a Tegra 3 device?
While on the other hand, the Krait chip is more dynamic, able to adjust to your needs on the fly, and optimized for the stuff you'll actually do day-to-day on your phone. Yet at the same time, will inherently do it all using half the battery power of Tegra 3.
I can't imagine someone wanting to buy Car 1 over Car 2, so why would you want to buy Tegra 3 over Krait S4?
Have you ever noticed that, while companies are putting Tegra 3 in their high end phones, the very highest end flapship phones are all getting Krait S4? This means something...3-facepalm- Why don't people ever bother reading before posting?
I'll say it again, and if anyone needs more details look up my other posts.
In this current generation, dual-core Krait S4 outperforms Tegra 3 in every way.
Better battery life, faster speeds, dynamic voltage, A15 vs A9, more future-proof!
Please, learn about the science behind these chips and consider the current software environment before airing your ignorance for all to see. In principle, with all other factors being the same, and in an environment not hostile to multiple cores, then and only then is a quad-core phone viable.
Until such a day comes, always go with the dual-core Krait or Exynos chipset. Because frankly, Tegra 3 was outdated the day it was released.
Many of you keep assuming that quad-core vs dual-core is essentially a trade-off between performance and battery life. This is not true. Dual-core Krait S4 has the edge in -both-.
There is literally no viable reason to prefer the Tegra 3 over the Krait S4, and thus, no reason to get a quad-core Tegra 3 over dual-core Krait S4.2
Almost correct: Android the OS is optimized for multiple cores as of the release of ICS. It's the apps that aren't optimized for multiple cores, and are unlikely to see more than a 10% gain in their user experience from becoming optimized (Krait gives 100% more gain compared to Tegra 3 without optimization, and will see the same 10% gain from optimization as the Tegra 3 regardless), and the vast majority of apps are unlikely to ever push the Tegra 3 to its limits even if they ever get optimized either, a highly unlikely scenario.
But apart from that minor detail your post is correct. I've been trying to spread the facts all week now. I've seen so many "Quad-core is future-proof!" "Quad-core gives more power!" "Dual-core to save battery power even though it must be weaker!" posts everywhere, and the sheer ignorance of the community frustrates me to no end.
Judging by my thanks meter, I've at least managed to show some people the truth of the matter. It makes me feel a little hope for humanity. ^_^
