You keep saying no, but then you make my point for me. Apple has never listed the PCU speed. They also don't list their AEBS as being capable of 540Mbps, they simply say 5x faster than 802.11g. Apple usually doesn't list specs just to list specs, but they also usually won't win in a spec sheet war so why would they. So we have to rely on independent studies to get the facts.
What difference does that make? According to you the HTC has 24% faster CPU. When you measure how long the unit will last in a real world test you are adding or subtracting time based on the individual parts. It's about the whole device. To say that the HTC gets a 25% handicap because of the smaller battery is disingenuous.
My point is not about the iphone, my point is about the Touch HD --- they listed their specs, so they are not going to lie about it. I am just responding to your comment that you have "reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed" for the Touch HD. There is no reason to doubt that HTC is lying about the spec.
I agree with you that it is very important to look at the whole package. That's why a couple of pages ago --- I made the comment that this whole thing about non-replaceable battery is about Apple made a design choice to cheapen out with a unknown chipset with a questionable reception and battery life --- which cause them to (1) have to force everybody to carry an extended battery (the LG Voyager's optional extended battery is only slightly bigger at 1500 mah) and (2) left Apple no room to put in the battery door because the iphone is already big enough and thick enough to accomodate the huge extended battery ---- which is the topic of this thread.
Maybe if Apple spend the money and get the more expensive Qualcomm chipset --- then they could have use a smaller battery, then they could have made a battery door available and still have a decent size handset footprint.
My point is not about the iphone, my point is about the Touch HD --- they listed their specs, so they are not going to lie about it. I am just responding to your comment that you have "reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed" for the Touch HD. There is no reason to doubt that HTC is lying about the spec.
They are listing HW, so saying that it has HSUPA radios capable of 7.2Mbps is not a lie, but we both know that it will never see that with a 500MHz ARM CPU, even if we account for the best non-theoretical speeds. The same goes for the CPU. Just because they listed the actual HW doesn't mean that they may not under-clock it, even a little in the firmware if they find that the usage is just as smooth at a lower speed while increasing the battery life. That would be responsible of them.
As for the battery, I have no doubt in my mind that the durations listed are accurate as tested, but until we get some independent testing we really don't have any idea as we don't know the metrics they are using. Apple has really turned their battery testing around in past few years, but I still don't trust their battery stats until they are independently tested.
The same goes for the CPU. Just because they listed the actual HW doesn't mean that they may not under-clock it, even a little in the firmware if they find that the usage is just as smooth at a lower speed while increasing the battery life. That would be responsible of them.
As for the battery, I have no doubt in my mind that the durations listed are accurate as tested, but until we get some independent testing we really don't have any idea as we don't know the metrics they are using. Apple has really turned their battery testing around in past few years, but I still don't trust their battery stats until they are independently tested.
What you are talking about it's not strictly underclocking CPU speed --- what you are talking about is more like how Intel designed laptop CPU's with variable speed. You plug-in the laptop to AC power, then the CPU runs at full speed. You run the laptop on battery, it runs on reduced speed. It's a hardware and software combination with the OS being able to throttle the CPU.
Intel tells you about that in their ads (and Microsoft tells you about the power management feature in Windows XP) They don't hide this fact because they could get sued. They don't call it underclocking --- they call it power management.
Call me old fashion, when they tell you that the CPU is 528 Mhz, it is 528 Mhz.
Apple can do whatever they want with their battery testing --- but when they picked a chipset manufacturer with a single digit market share, Apple isn't going to be able to perform miracles.
Call me old fashion, when they tell you that the CPU is 528 Mhz, it is 528 Mhz.
Underclocking and overclocking a CPU means that you make the speed ceiling lower or higher than the original ceiling speed. Apple using a 620MHz CPU that only has a ceiling speed of 412MHz because it has been underclocked.
Underclocking and overclocking a CPU means that you make the speed ceiling lower or higher than the original ceiling speed. Apple using a 620MHz CPU that only has a ceiling speed of 412MHz because it has been underclocked.
That's not how the ARM chip market operates.
ARM doesn't make the actual chips --- they design the ARM core. Other companies license the core design, add a few additional features, and then contract out to the silicon foundries to manufacture the actual chip.
ARM advertised that the ARM11 core is capable of running at 620 Mhz. Samsung licensed that core and add a few million silicon gates in order to become a mobile phone CPU --- maybe the stuff that Samsung add are not capable of 620 Mhz. So there is no way to know if the CPU is designed to run at 620 mhz --- because Samsung never said anything about it.
In the case of the HTC Touch HD, Qualcomm advertised the chipset to be running at 528 Mhz --- the same speed as HTC advertised. So there is no underclocking there.
We understand how the ARM chip market operates. This has nothing to do with chips being underclocked.
Quote:
ARM advertised that the ARM11 core is capable of running at 620 Mhz. Samsung licensed that core and add a few million silicon gates in order to become a mobile phone CPU --- maybe the stuff that Samsung add are not capable of 620 Mhz. So there is no way to know if the CPU is designed to run at 620 mhz --- because Samsung never said anything about it.
The iPhone uses Samsung S3C6400 a ARM1176JZ based ARM chip. Samsung actually lists it at 667MHz.
In the case of the HTC Touch HD, Qualcomm advertised the chipset to be running at 528 Mhz --- the same speed as HTC advertised. So there is no underclocking there.
Just because Qualcomm lists the maximum speed of the chip doesn't mean its not underclocked later.
It likely means that Samsung --- a relatively newcomer to the mobile CPU market --- cannot offer their CPU at the performance/battery life as advertised.
Qualcomm has been in the cell phone business for a long time --- if they say it's 528 Mhz, and if HTC say it's 528 Mhz, then I don't have any reason to doubt them.
However if you ask me whether Qualcomm deploy some sort of variable clocking technoloy like Intel laptop CPU's --- then I would say it most very likely. So that means if the phone does nothing (it may be clocked at 200 mhz), if you are talking on the phone (it may be clocked at 400 mhz), if you are running apps (it may be clocked at 528 mhz).
That's very different from Samsung/Apple --- where a 667 Mhz CPU is underclocked to 400 Mhz all the time (maybe even slower if the iphone does nothing).
It likely means that Samsung --- a relatively newcomer to the mobile CPU market --- cannot offer their CPU at the performance/battery life as advertised.
Qualcomm has been in the cell phone business for a long time --- if they say it's 528 Mhz, and if HTC say it's 528 Mhz, then I don't have any reason to doubt them.
This is nothing but pure speculation to support your point. You are just making stuff up as you go along.
It is my opinion that this legislation will have a negative impact on the environment. As it is right now, all iPhone batteries are recycled when replaced. If the iPhone had a user accessible battery, people would just buy a new one, pop it in, and throw the old in the trash.
I have an opinion on whether the iPhone should or should not have an accessible battery, but no matter what that opinion is... this particular part of the legislation is complete bullshit. (from an environmental perspective).
This is a benefit of using CDMA/CDMA2000-based networks. Even with "3G" turned on the phone still uses "2G" to send and receive and calls. GSM/UMTS-based phones aren't capable of this, regardless of the chips used.
Bollocks. I had a Nokia 6680 that could do it.
There was an option in settings: make voice calls using GSM or packet data. I left it on GSM. The sound quality may have been a little worse, but it made the battery last a whole lot longer.
Comments
You keep saying no, but then you make my point for me. Apple has never listed the PCU speed. They also don't list their AEBS as being capable of 540Mbps, they simply say 5x faster than 802.11g. Apple usually doesn't list specs just to list specs, but they also usually won't win in a spec sheet war so why would they. So we have to rely on independent studies to get the facts.
What difference does that make? According to you the HTC has 24% faster CPU. When you measure how long the unit will last in a real world test you are adding or subtracting time based on the individual parts. It's about the whole device. To say that the HTC gets a 25% handicap because of the smaller battery is disingenuous.
My point is not about the iphone, my point is about the Touch HD --- they listed their specs, so they are not going to lie about it. I am just responding to your comment that you have "reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed" for the Touch HD. There is no reason to doubt that HTC is lying about the spec.
I agree with you that it is very important to look at the whole package. That's why a couple of pages ago --- I made the comment that this whole thing about non-replaceable battery is about Apple made a design choice to cheapen out with a unknown chipset with a questionable reception and battery life --- which cause them to (1) have to force everybody to carry an extended battery (the LG Voyager's optional extended battery is only slightly bigger at 1500 mah) and (2) left Apple no room to put in the battery door because the iphone is already big enough and thick enough to accomodate the huge extended battery ---- which is the topic of this thread.
Maybe if Apple spend the money and get the more expensive Qualcomm chipset --- then they could have use a smaller battery, then they could have made a battery door available and still have a decent size handset footprint.
My point is not about the iphone, my point is about the Touch HD --- they listed their specs, so they are not going to lie about it. I am just responding to your comment that you have "reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed" for the Touch HD. There is no reason to doubt that HTC is lying about the spec.
They are listing HW, so saying that it has HSUPA radios capable of 7.2Mbps is not a lie, but we both know that it will never see that with a 500MHz ARM CPU, even if we account for the best non-theoretical speeds. The same goes for the CPU. Just because they listed the actual HW doesn't mean that they may not under-clock it, even a little in the firmware if they find that the usage is just as smooth at a lower speed while increasing the battery life. That would be responsible of them.
As for the battery, I have no doubt in my mind that the durations listed are accurate as tested, but until we get some independent testing we really don't have any idea as we don't know the metrics they are using. Apple has really turned their battery testing around in past few years, but I still don't trust their battery stats until they are independently tested.
The same goes for the CPU. Just because they listed the actual HW doesn't mean that they may not under-clock it, even a little in the firmware if they find that the usage is just as smooth at a lower speed while increasing the battery life. That would be responsible of them.
As for the battery, I have no doubt in my mind that the durations listed are accurate as tested, but until we get some independent testing we really don't have any idea as we don't know the metrics they are using. Apple has really turned their battery testing around in past few years, but I still don't trust their battery stats until they are independently tested.
What you are talking about it's not strictly underclocking CPU speed --- what you are talking about is more like how Intel designed laptop CPU's with variable speed. You plug-in the laptop to AC power, then the CPU runs at full speed. You run the laptop on battery, it runs on reduced speed. It's a hardware and software combination with the OS being able to throttle the CPU.
Intel tells you about that in their ads (and Microsoft tells you about the power management feature in Windows XP) They don't hide this fact because they could get sued. They don't call it underclocking --- they call it power management.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedStep
Call me old fashion, when they tell you that the CPU is 528 Mhz, it is 528 Mhz.
Apple can do whatever they want with their battery testing --- but when they picked a chipset manufacturer with a single digit market share, Apple isn't going to be able to perform miracles.
Call me old fashion, when they tell you that the CPU is 528 Mhz, it is 528 Mhz.
Underclocking and overclocking a CPU means that you make the speed ceiling lower or higher than the original ceiling speed. Apple using a 620MHz CPU that only has a ceiling speed of 412MHz because it has been underclocked.
Underclocking and overclocking a CPU means that you make the speed ceiling lower or higher than the original ceiling speed. Apple using a 620MHz CPU that only has a ceiling speed of 412MHz because it has been underclocked.
That's not how the ARM chip market operates.
ARM doesn't make the actual chips --- they design the ARM core. Other companies license the core design, add a few additional features, and then contract out to the silicon foundries to manufacture the actual chip.
ARM advertised that the ARM11 core is capable of running at 620 Mhz. Samsung licensed that core and add a few million silicon gates in order to become a mobile phone CPU --- maybe the stuff that Samsung add are not capable of 620 Mhz. So there is no way to know if the CPU is designed to run at 620 mhz --- because Samsung never said anything about it.
In the case of the HTC Touch HD, Qualcomm advertised the chipset to be running at 528 Mhz --- the same speed as HTC advertised. So there is no underclocking there.
http://www.qctconnect.com/products/msm_7201.html
That's not how the ARM chip market operates.
We understand how the ARM chip market operates. This has nothing to do with chips being underclocked.
ARM advertised that the ARM11 core is capable of running at 620 Mhz. Samsung licensed that core and add a few million silicon gates in order to become a mobile phone CPU --- maybe the stuff that Samsung add are not capable of 620 Mhz. So there is no way to know if the CPU is designed to run at 620 mhz --- because Samsung never said anything about it.
The iPhone uses Samsung S3C6400 a ARM1176JZ based ARM chip. Samsung actually lists it at 667MHz.
Samsung S3C6400
In the case of the HTC Touch HD, Qualcomm advertised the chipset to be running at 528 Mhz --- the same speed as HTC advertised. So there is no underclocking there.
Just because Qualcomm lists the maximum speed of the chip doesn't mean its not underclocked later.
Qualcomm has been in the cell phone business for a long time --- if they say it's 528 Mhz, and if HTC say it's 528 Mhz, then I don't have any reason to doubt them.
However if you ask me whether Qualcomm deploy some sort of variable clocking technoloy like Intel laptop CPU's --- then I would say it most very likely. So that means if the phone does nothing (it may be clocked at 200 mhz), if you are talking on the phone (it may be clocked at 400 mhz), if you are running apps (it may be clocked at 528 mhz).
That's very different from Samsung/Apple --- where a 667 Mhz CPU is underclocked to 400 Mhz all the time (maybe even slower if the iphone does nothing).
It likely means that Samsung --- a relatively newcomer to the mobile CPU market --- cannot offer their CPU at the performance/battery life as advertised.
Qualcomm has been in the cell phone business for a long time --- if they say it's 528 Mhz, and if HTC say it's 528 Mhz, then I don't have any reason to doubt them.
This is nothing but pure speculation to support your point. You are just making stuff up as you go along.
I have an opinion on whether the iPhone should or should not have an accessible battery, but no matter what that opinion is... this particular part of the legislation is complete bullshit. (from an environmental perspective).
This is a benefit of using CDMA/CDMA2000-based networks. Even with "3G" turned on the phone still uses "2G" to send and receive and calls. GSM/UMTS-based phones aren't capable of this, regardless of the chips used.
Bollocks. I had a Nokia 6680 that could do it.
There was an option in settings: make voice calls using GSM or packet data. I left it on GSM. The sound quality may have been a little worse, but it made the battery last a whole lot longer.
Amorya
Bollocks. I had a Nokia 6680 that could do it.
It's not something with the handset. It's about how the towers handoff the signal. GSM was only designed for hard handovers.
It's not something with the handset. It's about how the towers handoff the signal. GSM was only designed for hard handovers.
Doesn't change that I had a phone that did it! I don't know how, but it worked
Amorya
User replaceable batteries are almost always thrown in the trash when replaced.
Factory replaceable batteries are always recycled when replaced.