I'm not following your thought between paragraphs. What does that example have to do with the first paragraph? Are you saying that anything less than those specs are not enough for people today? Furthermore, could you point to the source where Qualcomm's low-cost and power efficient SoC will be 4-core, which is what I assume is what you means by 4x. So far I have seen no 4-core that is more power efficient or lower-cost than what a 2-core chip can be. Note that all the big.LITTLE only ever have two cores running at once and use different microarchitecture in a heterogeneous design.
It seems to me that today's HW is more than capable in terms of HW specs. It's good SW that is still the issue for most vendors.
PS: Why would "full HD playback" be in hat list? What devices being released today can't decode 1080p video?
The Snapdragon 410 is an example of the type of SoC that would make a ~$150 smartphone just as capable as a flagship of today. An SoC that can provide full functionality and run the vast majority of software.
The Cortex A53 is the successor to the Cortex A7, but with performance above Cortex A9. As long as the software can support 4 cores, it should be able to offer the same performance as a 2 cores but at a lower clock and lower voltage. One example of a low cost/low power SoC is Mediatek's new MT6592 which utilizes 8 Cortex A7 cores (a true octa-core SoC). It can compete with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 (4 Krait 400 cores) in CPU performance while using less power.
Considering some users are under the impression a budget Android device can hardly make a phone call, full HD playback would be way beyond their expectations *wink wink*. Other GPU features such as OpenGL ES 3.0 support, is new to iOS and is only supported in the A7.
Considering some users are under the impression a budget Android device can hardly make a phone call, full HD playback would be way beyond their expectations *wink wink*. Other GPU features such as OpenGL ES 3.0 support, is new to iOS and is only supported in the A7.
I think the impression is that most Android phones aren't utilized as smartphones and are running an older version of Android that is less capable.
I'm surprised that many Android users even have a functioning electrical outlet at home, so that they can charge their device. If I wanted to meet many Android users, my best bet at finding a whole bunch of them would probably be to head down towards the nearest soup kitchen.
When possible, I always try to avoid coming into close contact with Android users, like when I'm on the subway or a bus, as they probably carry more communicable diseases compared to the average, non cheap person. These people who are so cheap with their phones (ten dollars is enough to make these people whine and moan like there's no tomorrow), are also very likely to cheap out when it comes to other purchases, such as healthcare, medicine, preventative care etc.
These people and their garbage phones do nothing to advance the tech industry forward. Quite the opposite.
The Snapdragon 410 is an example of the type of SoC that would make a ~$150 smartphone just as capable as a flagship of today. An SoC that can provide full functionality and run the vast majority of software.
The Cortex A53 is the successor to the Cortex A7, but with performance above Cortex A9. As long as the software can support 4 cores, it should be able to offer the same performance as a 2 cores but at a lower clock and lower voltage. One example of a low cost/low power SoC is Mediatek's new MT6592 which utilizes 8 Cortex A7 cores (a true octa-core SoC). It can compete with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 (4 Krait 400 cores) in CPU performance while using less power.
Considering some users are under the impression a budget Android device can hardly make a phone call, full HD playback would be way beyond their expectations *wink wink*. Other GPU features such as OpenGL ES 3.0 support, is new to iOS and is only supported in the A7.
Whoa. It can compete with the SD800? It's not even close. There is limited data on this SoC, but there are benchmarks out there on devices ready to ship next month. The MT6592 only scores 440/2331 on Geekbench 3 (single core/multi-core) vs around 950/2700 for a SD800. When all 8 cores are running it gets close to a SD800, but on a single core it's less than half as fast. And since most software isn't taking advantage of multiple cores, this is where MT6592 phones are going to come in at (half as fast).
The MT6592 is going to be great for mid-range phones, but it's not challenging any high-end phones.
Nobody is under the impression a budget Android phone can't make calls or run Apps. What people are talking about is that most Android users only use a fraction of the capabilities of their devices. Which is ironic since all they can yap about is how Android is superior to the "Fisher Price OS" that is iOS.
Whoa. It can compete with the SD800? It's not even close. There is limited data on this SoC, but there are benchmarks out there on devices ready to ship next month. The MT6592 only scores 440/2331 on Geekbench 3 (single core/multi-core) vs around 950/2700 for a SD800. When all 8 cores are running it gets close to a SD800, but on a single core it's less than half as fast. And since most software isn't taking advantage of multiple cores, this is where MT6592 phones are going to come in at (half as fast).
The MT6592 is going to be great for mid-range phones, but it's not challenging any high-end phones.
Nobody is under the impression a budget Android phone can't make calls or run Apps. What people are talking about is that most Android users only use a fraction of the capabilities of their devices. Which is ironic since all they can yap about is how Android is superior to the "Fisher Price OS" that is iOS.
I was giving an example on how more cores running at lower clock/voltage can offer similar performance to a system of less cores using a higher clock/voltage. The demonstration of all 8 cores running is essential to my point, but by no means am I hyping up the abilities of the MT6592.
I think the impression is that most Android phones aren't utilized as smartphones and are running an older version of Android that is less capable.
I'll be a little more clear, I was being humorous playing off some of the comments in this and other threads. I'm quite aware of the stigmas that generally follow budget Android devices.
I was giving an example on how more cores running at lower clock/voltage can offer similar performance to a system of less cores using a higher clock/voltage. The demonstration of all 8 cores running is essential to my point, but by no means am I hyping up the abilities of the MT6592.
I thought we left the "more cores is always better" in the past with the "more MHz is always better." The iPhone is wiping the floor with 4-core SoCs and using a lot less power to do it. The goal should be better performance per watt, and the number of cores to achieve that goal are irrelevant.
No surprise here! iPhone has cornered itself as an elite product with snobbish value. So, any gift giving season the sales of Apple products will spike up because of this factor. But in the long run and on a day to day basis this niche product is no match to the ever expanding (and equalizing) juggernaut of Android.
Sorry. I almost spit out my French fries, that was so funny. Great joke.
I thought we left the "more cores is always better" in the past with the "more MHz is always better." The iPhone is wiping the floor with 4-core SoCs and using a lot less power to do it. The goal should be better performance per watt, and the number of cores to achieve that goal are irrelevant.
The "more cores is always better" is limited by software. In an ideal environment, more of the same cores should be able to offer the same performance at a lower clock and voltage. Your comparison breaks that ideal environment (different types of cores and different software).
In all fairness my 8x Cortex A7 vs 4x Krait 400 comparison broke one of those rules (different core types), but still managed to hold true.
The "more cores is always better" is limited by software. In an ideal environment, more of the same cores should be able to offer the same performance at a lower clock and voltage. Your comparison breaks that ideal environment (different types of cores and different software).
In all fairness my 8x Cortex A7 vs 4x Krait 400 broke one of those rules (different core types), but still managed to hold true.
1) It's not only limited b SW, but also HW capabilities.
2) Ideal is the key word there. Why was it not ideal for Apple to make A8 4-core if it would have used less power while offering more performance? If anyone is concerned about power efficiency it's Apple.
Whatever you do, avoid talking about how many more androids were sold world-wide during that same period as opposed to iOS devices. Any guesses, 5 to 1, 10 to 1? It's only a matter of time. When there are 100 androids to every 1 iOS device, then everyone will wonder why we used iPad's at all? Just like we do with iPod's now. Reading the tea leaves is as easy as going to some chinese web site and looking up what kind of phablets are out there. Apple is so far behind it is almost funny.
Apple, for instance, dominates the US market. THE platinum market. Where the MONEY is to be made. And China is spread wide open for them.
I think Apple is content to let Google play as much as they like in the Third World, which is Google's playground.
1) It's not only limited b SW, but also HW capabilities.
2) Ideal is the key word there. Why was it not ideal for Apple to make A8 4-core if it would have used less power while offering more performance? If anyone is conceded about power efficiency it's Apple.
1) How so? If you're referencing development and SoC design then I agree, companies have limitations in development. I was being a little more theoretical in my explanation.
2) This is likely due to higher cost and R&D into the SoC. Even if they had more power efficiency there is no reason to utilize it if they're already the market leader (save those advances for their next SoC). Their software would need to make the jump to 4 cores instead of 2 cores (but this has already been addressed). I can think of a few other reasons but what has been said is sufficient.
Whatever you do, avoid talking about how many more androids were sold world-wide during that same period as opposed to iOS devices. Any guesses, 5 to 1, 10 to 1? It's only a matter of time. When there are 100 androids to every 1 iOS device, then everyone will wonder why we used iPad's at all? Just like we do with iPod's now. Reading the tea leaves is as easy as going to some chinese web site and looking up what kind of phablets are out there. Apple is so far behind it is almost funny.
Apple, for instance, dominates the US market. THE platinum market. Where the MONEY is to be made. And China is spread wide open for them.
I think Apple is content to let Google play as much as they like in the Third World, which is Google's playground.
I'm more interested in how companies will evolve their mobile hardware/software and how the market will react when a budget device is more than enough.
For example, in the 2nd half of 2014, Qualcomm will be releasing an efficient and low cost SoC, the Snapdragon 410. This SoC uses 4x Cortex A53 cores (ARMv8 64-bit), an Adreno 306 GPU (OpenGL ES 3.0, full HD playback, 13MP camera support), and Qualcomm's global LTE chip.
1. Apple doesn't play for budget users. Hell budget users still buy Android and wish for the iPhone.
2. Do you really think Apple is just going to stop at the A7?
1. Apple doesn't play for budget users. Hell budget users still buy Android and wish for the iPhone.
2. Do you really think Apple is just going to stop at the A7?
Why would I think that? You're having trouble understanding my point. There is only so much the average user will use their smartphone to do. We're just about at a point where the hardware of a budget cellphone can exceed the requirements of a common user for basic and complex applications. Thus, the increased performance will only be utilized by fewer and fewer users.
1. Apple doesn't play for budget users. Hell budget users still buy Android and wish for the iPhone.
2. Do you really think Apple is just going to stop at the A7?
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Why would I think that? You're having trouble understanding my point. There is only so much the average user will use their smartphone to do. We're just about at a point where the hardware of a budget cellphone can exceed the requirements of a common user for basic and complex applications</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. Thus, the increased performance will only be utilized by fewer and fewer users.</span>
The problem with your argument is that it has been used before for almost every technology advanced in the last 50 years... And it's always been wrong!
Even if they had more power efficiency there is no reason to utilize it if they're already the market leader (save those advances for their next SoC)
Apple isn't going to utilize more power efficient chips because they are the market leader? WTF?! Do you know we're talking about Apple, right? The company that likes nothing more than make products more power efficient so they make them smaller and lighter with each iteration?
Why would I think that? You're having trouble understanding my point. There is only so much the average user will use their smartphone to do. We're just about at a point where the hardware of a budget cellphone can exceed the requirements of a common user for basic and complex applications. Thus, the increased performance will only be utilized by fewer and fewer users.
More like the increased power will cause innovative developers to see what capabilities they can bring to the smartphone that they previously couldn't.
If I was interviewing software developers to hire and I got a response like yours I'd dump their resume into the trash bin at the conclusion of our interview.
Even if they had more power efficiency there is no reason to utilize it if they're already the market leader (save those advances for their next SoC)
Apple isn't going to utilize more power efficient chips because they are the market leader? WTF?! Do you know we're talking about Apple, right? The company that likes nothing more than make products more power efficient so they make them smaller and lighter with each iteration?
As I understand it, the A9s are already being tested…
Comments
I'm not following your thought between paragraphs. What does that example have to do with the first paragraph? Are you saying that anything less than those specs are not enough for people today? Furthermore, could you point to the source where Qualcomm's low-cost and power efficient SoC will be 4-core, which is what I assume is what you means by 4x. So far I have seen no 4-core that is more power efficient or lower-cost than what a 2-core chip can be. Note that all the big.LITTLE only ever have two cores running at once and use different microarchitecture in a heterogeneous design.
It seems to me that today's HW is more than capable in terms of HW specs. It's good SW that is still the issue for most vendors.
PS: Why would "full HD playback" be in hat list? What devices being released today can't decode 1080p video?
The Snapdragon 410 is an example of the type of SoC that would make a ~$150 smartphone just as capable as a flagship of today. An SoC that can provide full functionality and run the vast majority of software.
Anandtech on the Snapdragon 410: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7573/qualcomm-announces-snapdragon-410-based-on-64bit-arm-cortex-a53-and-adreno-306-gpu
The Cortex A53 is the successor to the Cortex A7, but with performance above Cortex A9. As long as the software can support 4 cores, it should be able to offer the same performance as a 2 cores but at a lower clock and lower voltage. One example of a low cost/low power SoC is Mediatek's new MT6592 which utilizes 8 Cortex A7 cores (a true octa-core SoC). It can compete with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 (4 Krait 400 cores) in CPU performance while using less power.
Considering some users are under the impression a budget Android device can hardly make a phone call, full HD playback would be way beyond their expectations *wink wink*. Other GPU features such as OpenGL ES 3.0 support, is new to iOS and is only supported in the A7.
I think the impression is that most Android phones aren't utilized as smartphones and are running an older version of Android that is less capable.
I'm surprised that many Android users even have a functioning electrical outlet at home, so that they can charge their device. If I wanted to meet many Android users, my best bet at finding a whole bunch of them would probably be to head down towards the nearest soup kitchen.
When possible, I always try to avoid coming into close contact with Android users, like when I'm on the subway or a bus, as they probably carry more communicable diseases compared to the average, non cheap person. These people who are so cheap with their phones (ten dollars is enough to make these people whine and moan like there's no tomorrow), are also very likely to cheap out when it comes to other purchases, such as healthcare, medicine, preventative care etc.
These people and their garbage phones do nothing to advance the tech industry forward. Quite the opposite.
The Snapdragon 410 is an example of the type of SoC that would make a ~$150 smartphone just as capable as a flagship of today. An SoC that can provide full functionality and run the vast majority of software.
Anandtech on the Snapdragon 410: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7573/qualcomm-announces-snapdragon-410-based-on-64bit-arm-cortex-a53-and-adreno-306-gpu
The Cortex A53 is the successor to the Cortex A7, but with performance above Cortex A9. As long as the software can support 4 cores, it should be able to offer the same performance as a 2 cores but at a lower clock and lower voltage. One example of a low cost/low power SoC is Mediatek's new MT6592 which utilizes 8 Cortex A7 cores (a true octa-core SoC). It can compete with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 (4 Krait 400 cores) in CPU performance while using less power.
Considering some users are under the impression a budget Android device can hardly make a phone call, full HD playback would be way beyond their expectations *wink wink*. Other GPU features such as OpenGL ES 3.0 support, is new to iOS and is only supported in the A7.
Whoa. It can compete with the SD800? It's not even close. There is limited data on this SoC, but there are benchmarks out there on devices ready to ship next month. The MT6592 only scores 440/2331 on Geekbench 3 (single core/multi-core) vs around 950/2700 for a SD800. When all 8 cores are running it gets close to a SD800, but on a single core it's less than half as fast. And since most software isn't taking advantage of multiple cores, this is where MT6592 phones are going to come in at (half as fast).
The MT6592 is going to be great for mid-range phones, but it's not challenging any high-end phones.
Nobody is under the impression a budget Android phone can't make calls or run Apps. What people are talking about is that most Android users only use a fraction of the capabilities of their devices. Which is ironic since all they can yap about is how Android is superior to the "Fisher Price OS" that is iOS.
Whoa. It can compete with the SD800? It's not even close. There is limited data on this SoC, but there are benchmarks out there on devices ready to ship next month. The MT6592 only scores 440/2331 on Geekbench 3 (single core/multi-core) vs around 950/2700 for a SD800. When all 8 cores are running it gets close to a SD800, but on a single core it's less than half as fast. And since most software isn't taking advantage of multiple cores, this is where MT6592 phones are going to come in at (half as fast).
The MT6592 is going to be great for mid-range phones, but it's not challenging any high-end phones.
Nobody is under the impression a budget Android phone can't make calls or run Apps. What people are talking about is that most Android users only use a fraction of the capabilities of their devices. Which is ironic since all they can yap about is how Android is superior to the "Fisher Price OS" that is iOS.
I was giving an example on how more cores running at lower clock/voltage can offer similar performance to a system of less cores using a higher clock/voltage. The demonstration of all 8 cores running is essential to my point, but by no means am I hyping up the abilities of the MT6592.
I think the impression is that most Android phones aren't utilized as smartphones and are running an older version of Android that is less capable.
I'll be a little more clear, I was being humorous playing off some of the comments in this and other threads. I'm quite aware of the stigmas that generally follow budget Android devices.
I thought we left the "more cores is always better" in the past with the "more MHz is always better." The iPhone is wiping the floor with 4-core SoCs and using a lot less power to do it. The goal should be better performance per watt, and the number of cores to achieve that goal are irrelevant.
The one weakness in Google's ad-based revenue approach is if the advertisers realise Android users don't have much to spend.
No surprise here! iPhone has cornered itself as an elite product with snobbish value. So, any gift giving season the sales of Apple products will spike up because of this factor. But in the long run and on a day to day basis this niche product is no match to the ever expanding (and equalizing) juggernaut of Android.
Sorry. I almost spit out my French fries, that was so funny. Great joke.
I thought we left the "more cores is always better" in the past with the "more MHz is always better." The iPhone is wiping the floor with 4-core SoCs and using a lot less power to do it. The goal should be better performance per watt, and the number of cores to achieve that goal are irrelevant.
The "more cores is always better" is limited by software. In an ideal environment, more of the same cores should be able to offer the same performance at a lower clock and voltage. Your comparison breaks that ideal environment (different types of cores and different software).
In all fairness my 8x Cortex A7 vs 4x Krait 400 comparison broke one of those rules (different core types), but still managed to hold true.
1) It's not only limited b SW, but also HW capabilities.
2) Ideal is the key word there. Why was it not ideal for Apple to make A8 4-core if it would have used less power while offering more performance? If anyone is concerned about power efficiency it's Apple.
Apple, for instance, dominates the US market. THE platinum market. Where the MONEY is to be made. And China is spread wide open for them.
I think Apple is content to let Google play as much as they like in the Third World, which is Google's playground.
1) It's not only limited b SW, but also HW capabilities.
2) Ideal is the key word there. Why was it not ideal for Apple to make A8 4-core if it would have used less power while offering more performance? If anyone is conceded about power efficiency it's Apple.
1) How so? If you're referencing development and SoC design then I agree, companies have limitations in development. I was being a little more theoretical in my explanation.
2) This is likely due to higher cost and R&D into the SoC. Even if they had more power efficiency there is no reason to utilize it if they're already the market leader (save those advances for their next SoC). Their software would need to make the jump to 4 cores instead of 2 cores (but this has already been addressed). I can think of a few other reasons but what has been said is sufficient.
Concise and we'll said!
1. Apple doesn't play for budget users. Hell budget users still buy Android and wish for the iPhone.
2. Do you really think Apple is just going to stop at the A7?
1. Apple doesn't play for budget users. Hell budget users still buy Android and wish for the iPhone.
2. Do you really think Apple is just going to stop at the A7?
Why would I think that? You're having trouble understanding my point. There is only so much the average user will use their smartphone to do. We're just about at a point where the hardware of a budget cellphone can exceed the requirements of a common user for basic and complex applications. Thus, the increased performance will only be utilized by fewer and fewer users.
The problem with your argument is that it has been used before for almost every technology advanced in the last 50 years... And it's always been wrong!
Apple isn't going to utilize more power efficient chips because they are the market leader? WTF?! Do you know we're talking about Apple, right? The company that likes nothing more than make products more power efficient so they make them smaller and lighter with each iteration?
Why would I think that? You're having trouble understanding my point. There is only so much the average user will use their smartphone to do. We're just about at a point where the hardware of a budget cellphone can exceed the requirements of a common user for basic and complex applications. Thus, the increased performance will only be utilized by fewer and fewer users.
More like the increased power will cause innovative developers to see what capabilities they can bring to the smartphone that they previously couldn't.
If I was interviewing software developers to hire and I got a response like yours I'd dump their resume into the trash bin at the conclusion of our interview.
As I understand it, the A9s are already being tested…