I'm not sure of the reason for dissing the UK press considering the UK is one of the very few countries where Apple has decent market share.
What I am finding interesting is the implications of the iPhone 5c non sale sales disaster. With as few as 9% of buyers wanting the 5c, can Samsung supply enough 64 bit chipsets to satisfy the increased 5s demand?
So many other sites are touting the Exynos 5 Octa chip as an A7 killer but this site says Apple's A7 has the upper hand. Only time will tell who's right.
If Exynos was such a winner, why did the US S4s ship with Qualcomm chips?
It's all about laying the groundwork for future products.
No, it's all about the efficiencies of the ARMv8 processor architecture - and more specifically the AArch64 ISA.
ARM pared a decade's worth of cruft from the ARMv7 32 bit architecture - stuff like condition code masks which made just about all instructions conditional and doubling the number of general purpose and floating point registers. ARM completely rearchitected the instruction set to streamline it - oh, and as a side benefit they're able to address more memory.
Apple, being a platform developer, was able to rapidly bring their OS and framworks up to 64-bit snuff - after all, iOS shares frameworks and the kernel with MacOS X which is 64 bit.
Be interesting to see Google's people get Android up to 64 bit, and it'll be grand entertainment to see Google trying to get Larry to give them 64 bit libraries for their java middleware.
Be interesting to see Google's people get Android up to 64 bit, and it'll be grand entertainment to see Google trying to get Larry to give them 64 bit libraries for their java middleware.
As far as I'm aware Oracle contribute no code to Android. (other than the 8 lines that was argued about in court)
Dont you guys think that this article is very bias? It is self praising, I love Apple, but it doesnt meant that it is the king of the smartphone industry already, think of the market share worldwide, Apple has a lot to do, after the results in Q3 2013, they have drop in their market share. Apple has done so good in capturing high income users, but what about the low income users? 5C is just Iphone5 in a plastic. Love Apple`s way of outsourcing they manufacturing to other companies, most of it is in China. For the first time, Users get to have a thumb print ID scanner, Genius! but there are already flaws. now HTC is moving in with the technology. Criticizing Samsung is just like criticizing Apple for using Samsung`s semiconductors, isn`t that contradicting? We hate Samsung, but still uses their chips. I`m not being negative towards Apple, but the Apple community has been changing to become more bias, and looking down on others because they are using Asian products. Still a good article. Always looking the yin and yang of every products.
"And in fact, after developing the Exynos 5, Samsung announced that its Galaxy S4 phones bound for North America would be powered by Qualcomm chips, not its own new Exynos 5. That seemed to be puzzling, because Samsung is regarded as a leading designer and manufacturer of ARM chips, so why would it use a competitor's parts, particularly for such a flagship product?"
"Of course, the problem with the Exynos 5 wasn't its benchmarks, but rather that it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone."
The author might not be aware the reason Samsung doesn't use the Exynos 5 in North American models has nothing to do with its expense or its quality. Rather, it is because North American cellular service is behind the times, and Samsung would have had to create a separate LTE modem chip in order to support 4G speeds. Samsung went with the Qualcomm chip rather than doing this, because LTE modem is already available for the Snapdragon. It's as simple as that.
The author might not be aware the reason Samsung doesn't use the Exynos 5 in North American models has nothing to do with its expense or its quality. Rather, it is because North American cellular service is behind the times, and Samsung would have had to create a separate LTE modem chip in order to support 4G speeds. Samsung went with the Qualcomm chip rather than doing this, because LTE modem is already available for the Snapdragon. It's as simple as that.
Actually in this case the North American cell service is ahead of the world. The Exynos chip didn't play nice with the LTE chipset. Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE.
Actually in this case the North American cell service is ahead of the world. The Exynos chip didn't play nice with the LTE chipset. Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE.
The Qualcom Snapdragon already has an LTE chipset that's compatible with the North American network, which is why it was chosen for the Galaxy S4.
Samsung developed an LTE Advanced chipset that's compatible with Exynos 5, which is why the 8-core version of the Galaxy S4 was released in South Korea.
Again, the author says Samsung didn't go with the Exynos 5 in the North American version of the Galaxy S4 because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone," when, in fact, it was because the North American LTE network is behind the times. I should have been more clear and specified the North American LTE network in my original post.
You said "Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE". I take it you define "Much of the world" as the European Union? In Asia, both LTE-A availability and adoption is widespread. Only 3% of EU and 19% of US subscribers have 4G LTE phones, as opposed to over 60% in South Korea, for instance. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578515222989449746
Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, I'm sticking with my statement that the North American cell phone network is behind the times...
Again, the author says Samsung didn't go with the Exynos 5 in the North American version of the Galaxy S4 because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone," when, in fact, it was because the North American LTE network is behind the times. I should have been more clear and specified the LTE network.
You said "Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE". I take it you define "Much of the world" as the European Union? In Asia, both LTE-A availability and adoption is widespread. Only 3% of EU and 19% of US subscribers have 4G LTE phones, as opposed to over 60% in South Korea, for instance. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578515222989449746
Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, it's safe to say the North American cell network is not ahead of anyone but the EU and Africa.
Are you forgetting South America, Canada, India, Africa, and China? Most of these countries only just launched their LTE networks in the last few months to a year.
Are you forgetting South America, Canada, India, Africa, and China? Most of these countries only just launched their LTE networks in the last few months to a year.
No, hence my edit before your reply-
"Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, I'm sticking with my statement that the North American cell phone network is behind the times..."
"Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, I'm sticking with my statement that the North American cell phone network is behind the times..."
The US will always be behind because the network here in upgraded incrementally while other countries leap frog onto the lastest and greatest. On more than one occasion has a US telecom invested in a technology that became obsolete by the time the roll out was complete.
The US will always be behind because the network here in upgraded incrementally while other countries leap frog onto the lastest and greatest. On more than one occasion has a US telecom invested in a technology that became obsolete by the time the roll out was complete.
Well, let's not forget my original post, because we're getting off topic.
Samsung used a Snapdragon processor in the North American variant of the Galaxy S4 because there was already an LTE modem chip compatible with our outdated cellular networks in existence, not because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone." And that's the real point.
Well, let's not forget my original post, because we're getting off topic.
Samsung used a Snapdragon processor in the North American variant of the Galaxy S4 because there was already an LTE modem chip compatible with our outdated cellular networks in existence, not because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone." And that's the real point.
I agreed with you, but why was Apple able to make their processor to work with all LTE chipsets? Did they do something different?
The Qualcom Snapdragon already has an LTE chipset that's compatible with the North American network, which is why it was chosen for the Galaxy S4.
Samsung developed an LTE Advanced chipset that's compatible with Exynos 5, which is why the 8-core version of the Galaxy S4 was released in South Korea.
Again, the author says Samsung didn't go with the Exynos 5 in the North American version of the Galaxy S4 because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone," when, in fact, it was because the North American LTE network is behind the times. I should have been more clear and specified the North American LTE network in my original post.
You said "Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE". I take it you define "Much of the world" as the European Union? In Asia, both LTE-A availability and adoption is widespread. Only 3% of EU and 19% of US subscribers have 4G LTE phones, as opposed to over 60% in South Korea, for instance. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578515222989449746
Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, I'm sticking with my statement that the North American cell phone network is behind the times...
Comments
What I am finding interesting is the implications of the iPhone 5c non sale sales disaster. With as few as 9% of buyers wanting the 5c, can Samsung supply enough 64 bit chipsets to satisfy the increased 5s demand?
Tegra 3 has it, the Kindle HD has it. Tegra 4 has it.
Exynos big-little is just a very high specification variant.
So many other sites are touting the Exynos 5 Octa chip as an A7 killer but this site says Apple's A7 has the upper hand. Only time will tell who's right.
If Exynos was such a winner, why did the US S4s ship with Qualcomm chips?
From what I can remember it didn't play nice with the LTE chipset.
It's all about laying the groundwork for future products.
No, it's all about the efficiencies of the ARMv8 processor architecture - and more specifically the AArch64 ISA.
ARM pared a decade's worth of cruft from the ARMv7 32 bit architecture - stuff like condition code masks which made just about all instructions conditional and doubling the number of general purpose and floating point registers. ARM completely rearchitected the instruction set to streamline it - oh, and as a side benefit they're able to address more memory.
Apple, being a platform developer, was able to rapidly bring their OS and framworks up to 64-bit snuff - after all, iOS shares frameworks and the kernel with MacOS X which is 64 bit.
Be interesting to see Google's people get Android up to 64 bit, and it'll be grand entertainment to see Google trying to get Larry to give them 64 bit libraries for their java middleware.
I'm not quite sure what I can physically do with 64 bit.
It's not a question of what you can do, but what can developers do with a 64 bit processor?
Be interesting to see Google's people get Android up to 64 bit, and it'll be grand entertainment to see Google trying to get Larry to give them 64 bit libraries for their java middleware.
As far as I'm aware Oracle contribute no code to Android. (other than the 8 lines that was argued about in court)
"And in fact, after developing the Exynos 5, Samsung announced that its Galaxy S4 phones bound for North America would be powered by Qualcomm chips, not its own new Exynos 5. That seemed to be puzzling, because Samsung is regarded as a leading designer and manufacturer of ARM chips, so why would it use a competitor's parts, particularly for such a flagship product?"
"Of course, the problem with the Exynos 5 wasn't its benchmarks, but rather that it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone."
The author might not be aware the reason Samsung doesn't use the Exynos 5 in North American models has nothing to do with its expense or its quality. Rather, it is because North American cellular service is behind the times, and Samsung would have had to create a separate LTE modem chip in order to support 4G speeds. Samsung went with the Qualcomm chip rather than doing this, because LTE modem is already available for the Snapdragon. It's as simple as that.
Actually in this case the North American cell service is ahead of the world. The Exynos chip didn't play nice with the LTE chipset. Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE.
Shut up and go away.
Apple couldn’t care less. They don’t make products for them; they don’t care about cheap products.
Well, that’s wrong.
Not in the slightest. Please bone up on all this.
Nope. Wrong. Try again.
Actually in this case the North American cell service is ahead of the world. The Exynos chip didn't play nice with the LTE chipset. Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE.
The Qualcom Snapdragon already has an LTE chipset that's compatible with the North American network, which is why it was chosen for the Galaxy S4.
Samsung developed an LTE Advanced chipset that's compatible with Exynos 5, which is why the 8-core version of the Galaxy S4 was released in South Korea.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-koreas-mobile-network-touted-as-worlds-fastest/
Again, the author says Samsung didn't go with the Exynos 5 in the North American version of the Galaxy S4 because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone," when, in fact, it was because the North American LTE network is behind the times. I should have been more clear and specified the North American LTE network in my original post.
You said "Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE". I take it you define "Much of the world" as the European Union? In Asia, both LTE-A availability and adoption is widespread. Only 3% of EU and 19% of US subscribers have 4G LTE phones, as opposed to over 60% in South Korea, for instance. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578515222989449746
Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, I'm sticking with my statement that the North American cell phone network is behind the times...
Are you forgetting South America, Canada, India, Africa, and China? Most of these countries only just launched their LTE networks in the last few months to a year.
Uncannily, they have become the most complained about network in the UK. Too many dropped calls it seems.
Are you forgetting South America, Canada, India, Africa, and China? Most of these countries only just launched their LTE networks in the last few months to a year.
No, hence my edit before your reply-
"Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, I'm sticking with my statement that the North American cell phone network is behind the times..."
The US will always be behind because the network here in upgraded incrementally while other countries leap frog onto the lastest and greatest. On more than one occasion has a US telecom invested in a technology that became obsolete by the time the roll out was complete.
The US will always be behind because the network here in upgraded incrementally while other countries leap frog onto the lastest and greatest. On more than one occasion has a US telecom invested in a technology that became obsolete by the time the roll out was complete.
Well, let's not forget my original post, because we're getting off topic.
Samsung used a Snapdragon processor in the North American variant of the Galaxy S4 because there was already an LTE modem chip compatible with our outdated cellular networks in existence, not because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone." And that's the real point.
I agreed with you, but why was Apple able to make their processor to work with all LTE chipsets? Did they do something different?
The Qualcom Snapdragon already has an LTE chipset that's compatible with the North American network, which is why it was chosen for the Galaxy S4.
Samsung developed an LTE Advanced chipset that's compatible with Exynos 5, which is why the 8-core version of the Galaxy S4 was released in South Korea.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-koreas-mobile-network-touted-as-worlds-fastest/
Again, the author says Samsung didn't go with the Exynos 5 in the North American version of the Galaxy S4 because "it was such an expensive pig that even Samsung didn't want to use it in its American-bound flagship smartphone," when, in fact, it was because the North American LTE network is behind the times. I should have been more clear and specified the North American LTE network in my original post.
You said "Much of the world either still using 3G GSM or only now transitioning to LTE". I take it you define "Much of the world" as the European Union? In Asia, both LTE-A availability and adoption is widespread. Only 3% of EU and 19% of US subscribers have 4G LTE phones, as opposed to over 60% in South Korea, for instance. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578515222989449746
Until I'm seeing download speeds of over 100 MB on LTE, I'm sticking with my statement that the North American cell phone network is behind the times...
Australia:-