How do you justify normalizing to the same clock speed when you are comparing different architectures? Some architectures (like Qualcomm) may be simply designed to run at higher clock speeds to accomplish the same work that other architectures (like the A7/A8) would perform at lower clock speeds. It's more meaningful to instead normalize by overall power consumption, since it could be the case (which needs to be checked of course) that the higher clock speeds of the Qualcomm are partly counterbalanced by a simpler design, or equivalently that the lower clock speeds of the A7 require more transistors to achieve.
No. If you're comparing Intel x86 to ARM or MIPS then you can't compare clock speeds. We're comparing ARM to ARM. And as I pointed out, even ARM normalizes to 1.0 when comparing their own processors, even 32bit against 64bit.
There's no way to spin the facts. The A7/A8 are way ahead of everyone else. So far ahead it's actually quite pathetic.
I try to update android SDK/BDK almost every day, and the first 64-bit NDK has been released a few days ago ONLY for Intel x86. No ARM version yet. So in my opinion you need to update next android major release (e.g. 5.1) for 64-bit.
I agree that the A8 is the best chip available right now as it has the best single-core performance available, but actually the 5433 is better in some multi-core benchmarks, probably about about equal where a task can utilise 3 cores (where the A8 would cap out at 2 cores) and the 5433 would take the lead for 4-core tasks although I'd still rather the A8 overal as most situations will require only 1 -2 cores as I understand it.
Now I wanted to challenge this:
Quote:
That means the A57 scores 613 in 32bit mode and 741 in 64bit mode. According to ARM themselves.
What about the Exynos 5433? Well, it scores 1128 at 1.9GHz. Converted to 1.0GHz and it scores...wait for it.....594. Compared to the 613 according to ARM it appears the Exynos isn't really the POS I stated, in that it's very close to ARM's number (in 32bit mode).
So there goes your (and mine) first argument, that the Exynos is garbage and we should not use its benchmark results. It appears the Exynos A57 performs about as well as ARM says it should.
Now what about the A7/A8? The A7 normalized to 1.0GHz scores 1076 in 64bit mode and the A8 scores 1142.
I'm not sure what you think is "impressive", but I'd say a processor that scores 1076/1142 is a hell of a lot faster than one that scores 741 (according to ARM).
Ok agreed so normalised to 1GHZ the A8 is still better, but you ignoring one major factor! The A8 caps out a 1.3GHZ and whereas the 5433 maxes out at 1.9GHZ, so obviously Apple has to sacrifice frequency in its more 'sophisticated' design, here is how performance would compare at a number of possible frequencies:
So you see the 810 is actually looking very promising, likely to offer very similar or better single-core CPU performance and much better performance in 3-4 core applications.
GPU performance is also likely to be better by around 20-25% based on the fact that the Adreno 420 is very close to the GPU in the A8 and the 430 is 30% faster than the 420.
er, did what? it's a complete non-issue. when I used phone naked I rarely if ever operate flat on a table. but when I tried it, it didn't rock - unless tapping the top-left corner, but that area was unneeded due to left-edge swiping for Back. lastly, I ended up putting a case on it anyway.
non-issue in either use case.
Did what? They brought the complaints about the camera ring upon themselves, that's what.
As a footnote to the thread, I find it very interesting that the Google Nexus crowd's biggest complaint is the price... many going so far as to say "it's the only reason they considered Nexus branded devices in the first place... and will look elsewhere now".
What? Does that mean that Android is really not as good or better than iOS as the Android fans have always claimed, and that it can't compete $ to $ with the iDevices?
More worrying to me... and it should be to Google... that a vast majority of it's users and fans think that a "computer in your pocket" should be next to free, or at the very least sold at no more than "cost". Which everyone always points to those tear-down price charts and figures, without considering the engineering, research and marketing that goes into these devices.
Of note: is Google really making any money on their mobile efforts at all? And is this the reason they're being forced to up the price? Or are they really thinking they're just as good as Apple and can price accordingly?
Even though I'm fully in the Apple camp... I'm still looking forward to playing with that Android "sucker"... it doesn't look half bad even though I doubt it will be a "sweet" experience in comparison to iOS.
Of note: is Google really making any money on their mobile efforts at all? And is this the reason they're being forced to up the price? Or are they really thinking they're just as good as Apple and can price accordingly?
Even though I'm fully in the Apple camp... I'm still looking forward to playing with that Android "sucker"... it doesn't look half bad even though I doubt it will be a "sweet" experience in comparison to iOS.
Good questions. I'm not convinced Google has a great mobile plan yet, but at the same time what was the alternative to creating their own OS'es? Microsoft wasn't going to welcome them, which is what prompted Google Android in the first place, and Apple isn't a reliable long-term partner. If they see a market advantage in their own solutions rather than a partners they do it.
As for the Nexus 6 it doesn't interest me at all, just too big. At the same time if every one of the traditional Nexus buyers decided to look elsewhere because of the price the numbers wouldn't even chart. Google can't be selling more than a couple million in the first place, pale in comparison to overall Android device sales. If price was the deciding factor the Moto X should be selling 10's of millions at their $499 contract-free retail price. Heck Microsoft should be soaring in market share with several Lumia's available off-contract priced well under $300.
I try to update android SDK/BDK almost every day, and the first 64-bit NDK has been released a few days ago ONLY for Intel x86. No ARM version yet. So in my opinion you need to update next android major release (e.g. 5.1) for 64-bit.
This is the way Google words it.
"Support for 64-bit SoCs using ARM, x86, and MIPS-based cores
Shipping 64-bit native apps like Chrome, Gmail, Calendar, Google Play Music, and more
Pure Java language apps run as 64-bit apps automatically"
Does Nexus 6 have a kill switch as required by law?
Yes it does.
"We applaud Google for including a ‘kill switch’ solution in its new version of Android, one of the most popular smartphone operating systems in the world," San Francisco district attorney George Gascón and New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman say in a statement. "The majority of smartphone owners now have access to a theft-deterrent solution." That said, Gascón and Schneiderman says that there's still work to be done, as they want to see all smartphones enable this solution by default "so violent criminals lack the incentive to steal any smartphone." http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/15/6983509/android-lollipop-includes-kill-switch-factory-reset-protection
Comments
This is why to this day Android proponents insist that tablets are toys.
How do you justify normalizing to the same clock speed when you are comparing different architectures? Some architectures (like Qualcomm) may be simply designed to run at higher clock speeds to accomplish the same work that other architectures (like the A7/A8) would perform at lower clock speeds. It's more meaningful to instead normalize by overall power consumption, since it could be the case (which needs to be checked of course) that the higher clock speeds of the Qualcomm are partly counterbalanced by a simpler design, or equivalently that the lower clock speeds of the A7 require more transistors to achieve.
No. If you're comparing Intel x86 to ARM or MIPS then you can't compare clock speeds. We're comparing ARM to ARM. And as I pointed out, even ARM normalizes to 1.0 when comparing their own processors, even 32bit against 64bit.
There's no way to spin the facts. The A7/A8 are way ahead of everyone else. So far ahead it's actually quite pathetic.
How long until someone bends the nexus 6?
I predict nobody'll care enough to bend it.
Unlikely.
I try to update android SDK/BDK almost every day, and the first 64-bit NDK has been released a few days ago ONLY for Intel x86. No ARM version yet. So in my opinion you need to update next android major release (e.g. 5.1) for 64-bit.
I thought I'd chip in here...
I agree that the A8 is the best chip available right now as it has the best single-core performance available, but actually the 5433 is better in some multi-core benchmarks, probably about about equal where a task can utilise 3 cores (where the A8 would cap out at 2 cores) and the 5433 would take the lead for 4-core tasks although I'd still rather the A8 overal as most situations will require only 1 -2 cores as I understand it.
Now I wanted to challenge this:
That means the A57 scores 613 in 32bit mode and 741 in 64bit mode. According to ARM themselves.
What about the Exynos 5433? Well, it scores 1128 at 1.9GHz. Converted to 1.0GHz and it scores...wait for it.....594. Compared to the 613 according to ARM it appears the Exynos isn't really the POS I stated, in that it's very close to ARM's number (in 32bit mode).
So there goes your (and mine) first argument, that the Exynos is garbage and we should not use its benchmark results. It appears the Exynos A57 performs about as well as ARM says it should.
Now what about the A7/A8? The A7 normalized to 1.0GHz scores 1076 in 64bit mode and the A8 scores 1142.
I'm not sure what you think is "impressive", but I'd say a processor that scores 1076/1142 is a hell of a lot faster than one that scores 741 (according to ARM).
Ok agreed so normalised to 1GHZ the A8 is still better, but you ignoring one major factor! The A8 caps out a 1.3GHZ and whereas the 5433 maxes out at 1.9GHZ, so obviously Apple has to sacrifice frequency in its more 'sophisticated' design, here is how performance would compare at a number of possible frequencies:
A8 @ ;1.4GHZ - 1598 - (multi: 3196)
Qualcomm 810 @ 1.9GHZ - 1407 (multi: 5628)
Qualcomm 810 @ 2.3GHZ - 1704 (multi: 6816)
Qualcomm 810 @ 2.7GHZ - 2000 (multi: 8000)
So you see the 810 is actually looking very promising, likely to offer very similar or better single-core CPU performance and much better performance in 3-4 core applications.
GPU performance is also likely to be better by around 20-25% based on the fact that the Adreno 420 is very close to the GPU in the A8 and the 430 is 30% faster than the 420.
Did what? They brought the complaints about the camera ring upon themselves, that's what.
[URL=http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/10/google-announces-the-nexus-6-nexus-9-and-android-5-0-lollipop/?comments=1]In the Ars thread[/URL]... some have even said the iPad or iPhone is now a "no-brainer"?
What? Does that mean that Android is really not as good or better than iOS as the Android fans have always claimed, and that it can't compete $ to $ with the iDevices?
More worrying to me... and it should be to Google... that a vast majority of it's users and fans think that a "computer in your pocket" should be next to free, or at the very least sold at no more than "cost". Which everyone always points to those tear-down price charts and figures, without considering the engineering, research and marketing that goes into these devices.
Of note: is Google really making any money on their mobile efforts at all? And is this the reason they're being forced to up the price? Or are they really thinking they're just as good as Apple and can price accordingly?
Even though I'm fully in the Apple camp... I'm still looking forward to playing with that Android "sucker"... it doesn't look half bad even though I doubt it will be a "sweet" experience in comparison to iOS.
Good questions. I'm not convinced Google has a great mobile plan yet, but at the same time what was the alternative to creating their own OS'es? Microsoft wasn't going to welcome them, which is what prompted Google Android in the first place, and Apple isn't a reliable long-term partner. If they see a market advantage in their own solutions rather than a partners they do it.
As for the Nexus 6 it doesn't interest me at all, just too big. At the same time if every one of the traditional Nexus buyers decided to look elsewhere because of the price the numbers wouldn't even chart. Google can't be selling more than a couple million in the first place, pale in comparison to overall Android device sales. If price was the deciding factor the Moto X should be selling 10's of millions at their $499 contract-free retail price. Heck Microsoft should be soaring in market share with several Lumia's available off-contract priced well under $300.
This is the way Google words it.
"Support for 64-bit SoCs using ARM, x86, and MIPS-based cores
Shipping 64-bit native apps like Chrome, Gmail, Calendar, Google Play Music, and more
Pure Java language apps run as 64-bit apps automatically"
Does Nexus 6 have a kill switch as required by law?
Yes it does.
"We applaud Google for including a ‘kill switch’ solution in its new version of Android, one of the most popular smartphone operating systems in the world," San Francisco district attorney George Gascón and New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman say in a statement. "The majority of smartphone owners now have access to a theft-deterrent solution." That said, Gascón and Schneiderman says that there's still work to be done, as they want to see all smartphones enable this solution by default "so violent criminals lack the incentive to steal any smartphone."
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/15/6983509/android-lollipop-includes-kill-switch-factory-reset-protection
This is just a Amazon Fire TV put in a round box instead of a square box. No innovation here.