In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1708
Online now 1553 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
APPARENT specs might have been leaked via Twitter.
My upgrade isn't until November... I just hope the radios on it are better. The Droid 3 I'm using until my S3 gets fixed, has better reception.
Full reveal is next Thursday in New Yahk, 3/14
Galaxy S4 leaked design and specs The Samsung Galaxy S4 may be the most anticipated Android device ever, and our old pals at @evleaks may have just outed the specs and overall design of it.
tRCMB - Where MSU fans eat their own.
It reads a little light on details. I'm not impressed.
It's gonna track your eyes.
Apple would put that on the iPhone 6 and it would be revolutionary. Lol.
Expect a smaller (5" vs. 5.5") Note II without the pen but with a better camera. Quad-core, 2GB RAM.
Guinness makes you drop mud.
I want a big battery... the S3 one sucks. Although if the radio is better, wouldn't be much of an issue.
When I was at the Vietnamese VZW store getting my Droid 3 activated, the sales rep said she lasted all day at EIGHT PERCENT on her Note 2 battery. I wanted to call BS so badly, but couldn't do it. She was pretty nice for being from Da Nang.
Rumored to be removable 2600 mAh vs. 2100 mAh S3 & 3100 mAh Note II. Processor should be more efficient as well.
Our final look at how the rumored Samsung Galaxy S4 matches up against the Samsung Galaxy Note 2.
This bit is likely incorrect (at least if you're comparing with a US Galaxy S3).
The S3 uses a dual-core processor.
The S4 is rumored to use a quad-core processor.
Quad core processors are currently a poor choice for phones.
Smartphone workloads are inherently single threaded.
Even when you have multiple "apps" running simultaneously, virtually all of them are in a suspended state except for the one in the foreground.
For multimedia apps (specifically music, etc.) that you can legitimately run in the background and its doing 'stuff', these apps actually offload their work to some dedicated D2A type module (think integrated audio processor). They don't keep a processor core occupied!
Ultimately, you'll get better performance from a dual-core processor with a higher clock-speed and you'll get better battery life as well!
This won't always be the case -- but for the foreseeable next 5 or 6 years at least quad-core processors in smartphones will be bad design choices from an engineering perspective, although they might be good choices from a marketing perspective.
The day I get an S3 is the day Samsung announces about S4...
Location: Mumbai, India
I had the same exact problem. Just upgraded within the month from an iPhone 4 to an S3. Absolutely loved the phone except call quality was for shit. Dropped calls all the time, crackly when it didn't. Hell, there were a lot of times when I would have calls go right to voicemail and not even ring. Literally the worst part of the phone was the actual phone function lol. Thought it was a bad phone so I got another one. Same exact thing happened. Read online how they have terrible radios. Got a Droid Razr Maxx HD and have had perfect call quality and have been really happy with my choice.
Since I just upgraded, I've got a couple years to wait. Hopefully they get that shiz figured out because I like the galaxy line a lot.
University of Michigan: Keeping ugly girls out of East Lansing since 1837!
I have an S3 as well but was told by Verizon reps that Motorolas traditionally have better radios than Samsung.
All of that may be true, but my point on efficiency was related to the actual technology of the new processor being more energy efficient. My Note II has a quad-core that is pretty energy efficient. And it is smokin' fast. So I'll agree to disagree with you and leave you with this:
EDIT: after reading a little of the above, I'm convinced you actually don't know what you're talking about.
This post was edited by Heat Miser 13 months ago
dammit, my 2 year upgrage isnt up until 7-1-14, by then the S5 will be out
C'mon man.. no need for that jab.. I'm not trying to convince you not to buy a Galaxy S4.. You like the phone -- go get it, and enjoy it! Agreeing to disagree is cool too, but facts are facts.
There's a big problem with the Nvidia PDF:
1) It's marketing material and it's very low on details
2) Specifically, the Tegra III chip referenced in that PDF has one trick absent from the Exynos chip rumored to be in the S4. It's got an extra ultra-low-power core which it uses to implement a super-low-power state while it puts all the other cores to sleep. It's the only ARM chip that does that. On all other CPUs you're waking up a regular core instead.
3) The payloads they mention make no sense for smartphones: audio video transcoding, physics simulations, file compression, 3d stereo gaming? Of course you'll see a performance boost for obviously parallelizable workloads like that. Is that what you use your phone for??
In any case, you might be right about the process technology used to fabricate the S4's CPU being more efficient. Even without that, it's possible that they just have a stepping (an architecure refinement) that has won them some power gains. That's the natural course of things for CPU design.. newer is generally better.. Of course, that applies no matter how many cores you have.
I recommend taking a quick look at this:
"Realistically, it is hard to see any benefits from quad-cores in mobile devices. The majority of PCs today sell with dual-core CPUs, and that is a reflection of the state of software; multithreading is hard and most applications are single threaded. Software for mobile devices is even more primitive and less amenable to threading. Comparing a quad-core to a dual-core at the same power, the dual-core should be able to reach about 25 percent higher frequencies (power scales roughly with frequency cubed). For the vast majority of workloads, a faster dual-core CPU will have better performance. Despite this fact, there appears to be some marketing value for quad-core SoCs, even if the delivered value is minimal."
Arstechnica is an excellent site, unafraid to delve into detail -- although anandtech and tomshardware tend to get even more detailed. Anandtech IIRC had a much more detailed analysis some months ago -- I'll try to find it and post here if I can.
I'm really not trying to convince you that this is a bad phone, or that you shouldn't get it. I'm a hardware nerd and I buy over-specced stuff all the time. But it is misleading to think of the S4's quad-core processor as a good/awesome thing -- a dual-core would have been a better choice, and it's important to mention that so as not to mislead people.
I don't want the phone. As I said, I've already got a quad-core Note II which is lightning fast and battery efficient...and bigger.
What you've posted there is basically an editorial. Someone's opinion. Filed with words like "should" & phrases like "it's hard to see". No actual testing or stats. Nearly everyone found it "hard to see" a market for the original Note (screen's too big! What will people think about me when I'm holding it to my ear? Wah, wah, wah), yet every other manufacture is now expanding their screen size & Samsung is now the 800 pound gorilla of Android hardware.
Naturally, you chose to focus on the part about physics, video transcoding, blah, blah, blah, but chose to ignore this:
"Modern browsers such as Google Chrome and
Mozilla Firefox are now multi-threaded and capable of spawning several concurrent processes. Each page tab in a Chrome browser is a separate process, and each process manages its own set of threads. Both the processes and threads are highly parallelizable."
What do people spend a great deal of time using their phones for? Browsing the web.
How about this:
"a quad core CPU delivers almost fifty percent faster Web browsing performance compared to dual core CPU based mobile processors."
I can tell you my Note II loads web pages about as fast as my desktop does.
"The Android operating system evolved from Linux, and therefore has native support for
multitasking and multi-threading. Recent releases of Android 2.3 and Android 3.0/3.1/3.2 have
added several features that improve the operating system’s ability to leverage the processing
power of multi-core CPUs."
"What you've posted there is basically an editorial. Someone's opinion."
Fair point. But that's better than citing a party that has a stake in selling you something (i.e. the Nvidia PDF). Remember, the point is the performance vs. battery life trade-off. It's very basic math: If you compare a dual-core and quad core processor, assume they both consume 1W with all cores fully powered up. That way you'll get the same battery life. Then each core in the 4-core proc consumes 0.25Watts, and each core in the 2-core processors consumes 0.5 watts. Assuming they are the same microarchitecture, same fabrication process (same generation and same company basically), what magic will this company use, to get the 0.25 Watt cores to perform at the same level as the 0.5 watt cores? None exists. The extra 0.25 watts / core will be used to increase the clock on the dual core processor.
Your point about web-browsing is a good one, and very much worth discussing. The problem: on mobile devices, your bottleneck is *bandwidth* and not processing power. A process per tab, multiple threads per process, all that is fine -- this has been the state of browsers for a long time -- but your cores will spend more time idling while waiting for data to get to them across the network.
The screen's too big drama queen stuff -- that's a bit of a straw man I think. I'm merely pointing out the performance vs. battery life trade off and how 4 cores is on the wrong end of that for smartphones. If you feel it works for you, fine. Same as screen sizes -- whatever works for you works for you. But let's at least discuss the truth of the issue so others can too make informed decisions for themselves.
Note how in the Nvidia white paper, they do not give you simple specifications such as total power dispersion, PD per core idle, PD per core when powered up. Give us specifications, we can make decisions.
Your mention of Android and Linux multitasking is very true, but it shows that you're lacking some concepts here. (I hope that doesn't sound arrogant -- it's really not meant to). That statement applies to the OS kernel and threading APIs available. It is as true for Android as it is for iOS, OS-X, or the Windows NT kernel. These are all extremely mature kernels with excellent multi-processing and multi-threading capabilities. This used to be true of those kernels even when there were no multi-core processors in desktops! That has no bearing on the workloads being run on them. 99/100 mobile apps are UI transitions with a web service back end, with no multi threading. That's just how it is.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by TheAxMan 13 months ago
Or check out this:
The quad-core is not available on the S3 in the U.S., but is elsewhere.
"Samsung boasts that the new 32nm 1.4GHz quad-core processor flaunts twice the processing power over its predecessor, thanks to its High-K Metal Gate (HKMG) low-power technology. The net energy savings? About 20-percent. The application processor is a crucial element in providing our customers with a PC-like experience on mobile devices"
High-K Metal Gate technology is the process technology used to fabricate the processor. You can use HKMG to fabricate a single core, dual core, quad core, 8-core, 16-core processor. You can use to it fabricate a simple AND gate. You'll get 20-percent savings no matter what you use it for, relative to the generation before it. That has no bearing on the dual-vs-quad decision.
To make it clear, if the US Galaxy S3 used a dual core Exynos of the same generation, the exact statement, letter for letter, would hold true. Note that Samsung uses a qualcomm processor for the US S3 (as opposed to one of it's own), which is has a generally superior architecture to the Exynos anyway.
This post was edited by TheAxMan 13 months ago
I'll just say that I think the key error in your math and argument is assuming both processors use the same power. 2 x .5 = 4 x .25.
What Nvidia (and that pdf references multi-core processors in general as much as it does their specific processor) and other chip makers are saying is they are doing it with less power consumption. 2 x .5 = 1 vs. 4 x .2 = .8
So, in addition to all the benefits (even throwing out the physics, trascoding, etc.), it still uses less power than older chips. That's not some miracle, it's typical of all things that consume power. Do more with less. Stoves, refrigerators, light bulbs, etc. They all do more & more with each iteration while using less power.
What if it's a dynamic quad core that operates as a quad when demand is high and as a dual when demand is low? Just sayin'.
Of course it does. It's not gonna fill 4 cores with random crap if there's no need.
That's exactly how it works.
The trade offs:
1) You still have idle leakage in the cores that are turned off
2) You still have the problem where the quad core is clocked lower because of the reduced power-dissipation envelope per core. So in situations where you're using 1 or 2 cores of the 4 (most situations), the dual core processor is faster.
Just to be clear: it's important to remember that this applies to smartphone workloads. The evaluation will work out differently for tablets, still different for laptops, again for desktops, servers etc., and depends on what you're using it for. Over time, some of the ground realities might change as well. This applies to the state of the art right now.
That's not what they are saying at all -- you're misreading their material, and you're misunderstanding the point of doing the math there.
Allow me to explain: The 20% power savings you're concentrating on -- that comes from process technology. That applies to *everything* single/dual/quad core no matter. So it's not a point of differentiation. Look up that HKMG technology if you don't believe me.
And the math part -- you can select any number you want for the total power dissipation envelope, and divide by number of cores, to get the power/core. With the numbers you used, you get 0.2 watts/core for the quad core processor, vs. 0.5 watts per core for the dual-core processor. there is no magic by which you can make a 0.2 watt core outperform a 0.5 watt core. If they both use HKMG (basically, if they both are the same generation processor, made by the same company) then the 0.5 watt core will be clocked about 50% higher, and will consequently run circles around 0.2 watt core.
Ok, a current gen dual-core will perform as well or better than a next gen quad-core. I'll just go back to my dual-core Droid X that took 4 seconds to load a web page. The <1 second load time of my Note II is just a mirage. All the other noticeable performance improvements are also in my head. Thanks for showing me the light.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports