Hi,
I dont know whether if this question has been asked or not but
as in dual core it each core 1.2 making in total 2.4? or each core is half ?
if it is half doesn't that make it worse ?
it is two 1.2 GHz cores. However you can't plain sum up the core frequency and declare that SGS2 is 2.4 GHz, cores do not work like that.
Yes "if it is half", it would have made it that much slower
faddys123 said:
Hi,
I dont know whether if this question has been asked or not but
as in dual core it each core 1.2 making in total 2.4? or each core is half ?
if it is half doesn't that make it worse ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each core is cadenced at 1.2 Ghz.
Both have 1.2 ghz. You never specify the total amount of ghz.
EDIT: Ninja'd. That's what you get for opening a thread, leaving the computer for 10 minds and then reading it..
flooki said:
Both have 1.2 ghz. You never specify the total amount of ghz.
EDIT: Ninja'd. That's what you get for opening a thread, leaving the computer for 10 minds and then reading it..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok so each core is 1.2 but on average it would be near 2.4 ?
edit: also waht i ment by half is that is each core half 1.2 ?
faddys123 said:
Hi,
I dont know whether if this question has been asked or not but
as in dual core it each core 1.2 making in total 2.4? or each core is half ?
if it is half doesn't that make it worse ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
zxz0O0 said:
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That pretty much sums it up. Short & Simple.
zxz0O0 said:
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks i get it, i only asked this because i was on youtube and seen a Motorola atrix video saying its the fastest in the world because each core was 1ghz which made the 2 but now i get it
zxz0O0 said:
To make it easier for you to understand, think like that
Core = Car
1.2ghz = Max Speed of car is 200km/h
If you have two cars (dual core) are they able to drive 400km/h? No, but they can carry more people in total.
Same with cpu. If you have dual core it's not as double fast as one core. It can just execute two different things at the same time.
I know it's funny how I explain but my friends always understand it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is the best description of how dual core works I have ever heard! Simple and easy to understand. Will have to remember that for future reference when people ask about dual core
eagerly awaiting explanation of a multi-CPU device, and what multi-threading is.
thanks
kreoXDA said:
eagerly awaiting explanation of a multi-CPU device, and what multi-threading is.
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
COOL JOKE lol
Don't know if it's same on mobile devices but on a computer:
Multi Core = Multiple processes running at same time (Multi Tasking)
Multi Threaded = Multiple theads runnable inside the same process providing functionality (more Multi Tasking)
dh2311 said:
That is the best description of how dual core works I have ever heard! Simple and easy to understand. Will have to remember that for future reference when people ask about dual core
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! Also a good explanation is:
Core = brain
If you need to take a maths exam and you have two brains (two cores) you don't have more IQ and can't answer one exercise faster.
However, one brain (core1) can start with exercise #1 while the other brain (core2) can start with exercise #2. Summary: You are as double fast as normally taking the whole exam. But you are not faster answering one single question.
kreoXDA said:
eagerly awaiting explanation of a multi-CPU device, and what multi-threading is.
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhm, I don't have special explanations for these things. Multiplying the core frequency with the numbers of cores is a common error and is asked very often. That's why I thought about a good and very-easy-to-understand explanation.
Though I still try to answer.
Multi-CPU device is just a device using mutliple cores. Mobile devices try to achieve the same as desktop CPUs. With multiple cores you can complete more work at the same time and also at lower power.
Multithreading is a feature of the CPU. A software supporting multithreading must be running to use it. It allows the CPU to execute multiple threads at the same time.
Short:
Multi-CPU device: using multiple cpu cores to execute more tasks at the same time
Multithreading: feature to execute more threads (inside one task) at the same time.
Sorry about the mistakes I made and I am looking forward (to the weekend) to possible reforms
zxz0O0 said:
Sorry about the mistakes I made and I am looking forward (to the weekend) to possible reforms
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you just had to bring HER into this didn't you lol
Related
Motorola url: http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Fact-Sheets/Motorola-ATRIX-4G-Fact-Sheet-353b.aspx(Screenshot attached for those who are on device.)
Line of interest:
Processor: 2 processor cores running at 1GHz each
Nvidia url: http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-2.html
Lines of interest:
CPU: Dual-Core ARM Cortex A9
Frequency: 1 GHz, per core
Does this mean we have an effective 2GHz processing power in this device.
On a side note, my laptop is a quad core 2GHz, with each core at ~500MHz adding up to 2GHz in all. So that line got be confused thinking.
I've never heard of a 500Mhz quad core processor, but I have heard of a 2Ghz quad core processor, effectively providing 8GHz of processing power.
Nah, it really doesn't work like that. Each core will only run at 1ghz MAX, the benefit to having a second (or more) cores is that while you are doing something the second core is doing background stuff and you aren't getting bogged down. Or if the app supports it it can use both. Here's where things get fun....if your app uses both cores running at 1 ghz each it can TECHNICALLY process as fast as a 2ghz SINGLE CORE but its more like you get 50%-75% more performance from the second core. So I guess TECHNICALLY it would be the same as a single core 2ghz CPU...but at the same time not really? A 2ghz single would do things faster on single tasks, but multitasking the dual core is way better IMO. Hope that helps some.
harolds said:
I've never heard of a 500Mhz quad core processor, but I have heard of a 2Ghz quad core processor, effectively providing 8GHz of processing power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check in any CPU analyzer. Mine is a quad core, and each processor gets noted as ~500 MHz. I think u can find it even in 'device manager'.
Initially I too thought that I was getting 8GHz of power in my CPU, only to find later that it was infact 500x4.
Strange, my office system (desktop) is a dual core, and shows it at each core at 3GHz. Will check once more on my laptop when I get home. This is crazy!
But good to know. Even the graphics part of it has 8 cores. Was going through the specs. It rocks!
diablo009 said:
Check in any CPU analyzer. Mine is a quad core, and each processor gets noted as ~500 MHz. I think u can find it even in 'device manager'.
Initially I too thought that I was getting 8GHz of power in my CPU, only to find later that it was infact 500x4.
Strange, my office system (desktop) is a dual core, and shows it at each core at 3GHz. Will check once more on my laptop when I get home. This is crazy!
But good to know. Even the graphics part of it has 8 cores. Was going through the specs. It rocks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure your processor hasn't been underclocked as part of some sort of battery saving feature? I don't think most applications can even utilize all 4 cores, which would mean individual applications would perform...pretty slowly. Right?
chbearsrock said:
Are you sure your processor hasn't been underclocked as part of some sort of battery saving feature? I don't think most applications can even utilize all 4 cores, which would mean individual applications would perform...pretty slowly. Right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This has always been baffling me. I'll check today evening n update here. But now I am super happy abt the processor in atrix.
if you are in windows run cpu-z and post a screen shot.
skaboss610 said:
if you are in windows run cpu-z and post a screen shot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here u go.
its this processor. each core runs at a clock of 2ghz
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40480
according that screen shot, you have
2GHZ * 4CORES = 8GHZ
so... you had 8ghz all along!
Techcruncher said:
according that screen shot, you have
2GHZ * 4CORES = 8GHZ
so... you had 8ghz all along!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aaah!!! No wonder I paid $1300 for this laptop in July 2009. And no wonder games released even in 2011 are playing so well without any frame rate issue.
Thanks for clearing this up kind sir.
Just as the question states. I know the second core will sleep when not needed but say you launch an app, does the second core help load the app? The reason I ask is because I'm curious about the raw speed difference between the atrix and inspire. Now compairing the inspire running at 1.8 and the atrix seemingly stuck at 1 per core (I'm not saying the atrix wont ever be OCed but I'm just talking about what's currently available). I'm just curious if the second core will help the first with tasks. If it doesn't would that make the inspire technically way faster (obviously battery life may be an issue but this isn't a battery compairo)?
Thanks for any insight
I think you should start by knowing that overclocking ARM prroccessors gives little yield.
XOOM at 1.5 ghz scores only 500 better than a non-overclocked xoom on quadrant.
I'm going to try and simplify the answer for you.
Will BOTH cores be used? Maybe. First off, is the app itself optimized for dual core, or does it even need dual core / multithreaded capability.
Secondly, and I think more importantly, what is the rest of the phone doing. So, let's say you fire up your favorite app, the phone is still doing stuff in the background. Maybe it's checking email. Maybe Google Latitude is checking your location and updating. The point is - the other core will still be around to offload this work.
Now, WILL it go to the other core. Maybe. Maybe not. I do work on some big Sun machines, and have seen them use one or two out of 64 cores, even with massive loads and each core being used 100%, it refused to balance the load amongst CPU's.
Hope this helps.
mister_al said:
I'm going to try and simplify the answer for you.
Will BOTH cores be used? Maybe. First off, is the app itself optimized for dual core, or does it even need dual core / multithreaded capability.
Secondly, and I think more importantly, what is the rest of the phone doing. So, let's say you fire up your favorite app, the phone is still doing stuff in the background. Maybe it's checking email. Maybe Google Latitude is checking your location and updating. The point is - the other core will still be around to offload this work.
Now, WILL it go to the other core. Maybe. Maybe not. I do work on some big Sun machines, and have seen them use one or two out of 64 cores, even with massive loads and each core being used 100%, it refused to balance the load amongst CPU's.
Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea that's exactly like I figured, I was kinda going off Windows/Intel multi core setup. Even after dual+cores have been out for quite some time 95% of programs made still don't use more than one core (Most of those remaining 5% being very CPU intense programs PS, Autocad ect.). But I get what you mean, the one core will be dedicated to what your doing and not sharing cycles with anything else because core 2 is working on whatever pops up. So basically the Atrix might be a little slower at doing things BUT it will always stay the same speed with less/no bog.
Techcruncher said:
I think you should start by knowing that overclocking ARM prroccessors gives little yield.
XOOM at 1.5 ghz scores only 500 better than a non-overclocked xoom on quadrant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're saying Quadrant suck as it does with most phones or OCing the Xoom (and Atrix) wont really do much?
I already built an apk for testing CPU usage on both processors... When I get some free time, I'm going to turn it into a widget... Here's what I noticed:
Because of the current OS and less dual core support for apps, the phone kind of kicks certain tasks into using the 2nd processor. The APK i built reads the '/proc/stat' file and i've noticed that when the 2nd processor is being used it actually shows up in the file as 'cpu1'. However, when it's not being used the 'cpu1' line does not exist and you can default the 2nd processor usage to 0%. It seems like performing core OS tasks (like installing apps) kick the 2nd processor into use, which is what you can expect since froyo supports dual cores.
Like everyone says, I'd expect to see more dual core usage on 2.3/2.4 (whichever motorola gives) and when more apps are designed to kick certain threads onto the 2nd processor.
I'm kind of confused as to how phones don't use the same aspect as computers when it comes to the cores having the same amount of speed on each core. According to a couple articles, which I will post later ( was on droid guy, its late ), the phone comes with 2 600MHZ processors on 1 chip, making it a 1.2 GHZ dual core? From my understanding, this is NOT correct. I don't take my Q6600 say it has 2.4GHZ on each core and multiply that by 4 to get the correct speed of the chip and have a godly 9.6GHZ. It remains 2.4GHZ for each core. Can anyone explain why this is different or not true with the upcoming dual core phones?
Here is one link saying 2 600MHZ cores:
http://thedroidguy.com/2011/03/hands-on-with-htc-evo-3d-on-sprint/
heathmcabee said:
I'm kind of confused as to how phones don't use the same aspect as computers when it comes to the cores having the same amount of speed on each core. According to a couple articles, which I will post later ( was on droid guy, its late ), the phone comes with 2 600MHZ processors on 1 chip, making it a 1.2 GHZ dual core? From my understanding, this is not correct. I don't take my Q6600 say it has 2.4GHZ on each core and multiply that by 4 to get the correct speed of the chip and have a godly 9.6GHZ. It remains 2.4GHZ for each core. Can anyone explain why this is different or not true with the upcoming dual core phones?
Here is one link saying 2 600MHZ cores:
http://thedroidguy.com/2011/03/hands-on-with-htc-evo-3d-on-sprint/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhhmm..NO. To my understanding, it's 1.2GHz per core.
redlinux said:
Uhhmm..NO. To my understanding, it's 1.2GHz per core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah there was a hands on video where a Rep said it was 1.2ghz per core. Think it was the Androidcentral one. Can't remember.
this phone is going to fly.
I ASKED QUALCOMM and told me it is 1.2 per core
Sent from my HTC Incredible S using XDA App
It's rated at how high each core is capable of going. It doesn't measure how much they are combined.
Google search, my friends, is a valuable tool.
Umm it's 1.2 ghz each core.
AbsolutZeroGI said:
It's rated at how high each core is capable of going. It doesn't measure how much they are combined.
Google search, my friends, is a valuable tool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'm sorry for asking this, I did try and find a viable answer to what they were talking about, but my google searches must have not been very detailed enough to get a specific answer. Thanks for the reply.
The SPEED of the core processing is not a cumulative effect...
1.2 ghz is just that. 1.2 million/million instructions per cycle!
A PROCESSOR performs a simple binary function which is to operate a switch which will be either on or off, or a 1 or a zero. The processor is measured in how many transistors it has which can perform that on/off in how many times per second, hence it's speed. Overall, they keep making chips smaller and quicker, allowing the compact placement of now 2 processors or cores within the space of a single chip. The DUAL core represents that their are TWO distinctive operations per cycle, within ONE chip. So now you have twice the computations being performed in the same cycle. Meaning the single processing chip can handle 1.2 million/million switches (transistors = on/off = binary - 1/0) per cycle then times that by two. A very powerful leap over a single core chip.
Not half that x2 to make one...
Lol... maybe a bad translation, but one I hope might help clarify what the chip is doing.
Regards!
1.2ghz per core.
if you find a device that has dual 600mhz processors in it why would you ever even consider buying it? no offense. sprint would go under if that is what they released as their evo3d.ive known these specs for over 3 weeks now @google/skynet is your friend.
MagnusRagnarok said:
1.2ghz per core.
if you find a device that has dual 600mhz processors in it why would you ever even consider buying it? no offense. sprint would go under if that is what they released as their evo3d.ive known these specs for over 3 weeks now @google/skynet is your friend.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please read the OP again correctly and see that I am referring to the link in that states it is 2 600MHZ processors. I have been building computers for over 10 years with A+ certifications and MSCE. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I was just point out the fact that the website states differently, and I was wondering if this was coincidence or fact.
heathmcabee said:
Please read the OP again correctly and see that I am referring to the link in that states it is 2 600MHZ processors. I have been building computers for over 10 years with A+ certifications and MSCE. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I was just point out the fact that the website states differently, and I was wondering if this was coincidence or fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People like to read one sentence and then tell someone they are stupid for asking a question. Instead of letting the 3-4 posts after yours suffice people feel the need to comment on someone's "supposed" stupidity.
I've recently seen some tablets advertised as "dual core" that have two separate processors; one a standard and one a DSP like the Archos (specs copied below).
Processor(s) Central Unit:
Main processor: ARM CortexTM-A8, 32 bit, In-order, dual-issue, superscalar core @ 800 MHz
Additional processor: 32 bit DSP @ 430 MHz
I don't believe it was the Archos advertised, I think it was a Ramos advertised somewhere. The third party advertisements I saw stated that the unit had two cores, each at 1.2GHz, for a total of 2.4Ghz. I'm not an electronics person, but I believe that listing a unit as "dual core" or having two cores when in fact there is one cpu and one dsp is very misleading if not simply incorrect.
These types of statements in advertising could certainly lead to questions about what "dual core" really means.
Just thought I'd add the thought, I hope it was helpful.
cooolone2 said:
The SPEED of the core processing is not a cumulative effect...
1.2 ghz is just that. 1.2 million/million instructions per cycle!
A PROCESSOR performs a simple binary function which is to operate a switch which will be either on or off, or a 1 or a zero. The processor is measured in how many transistors it has which can perform that on/off in how many times per second, hence it's speed. Overall, they keep making chips smaller and quicker, allowing the compact placement of now 2 processors or cores within the space of a single chip. The DUAL core represents that their are TWO distinctive operations per cycle, within ONE chip. So now you have twice the computations being performed in the same cycle. Meaning the single processing chip can handle 1.2 million/million switches (transistors = on/off = binary - 1/0) per cycle then times that by two. A very powerful leap over a single core chip.
Not half that x2 to make one...
Lol... maybe a bad translation, but one I hope might help clarify what the chip is doing.
Regards!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to avoid any confusion this is explanation is close but not quite correct. 1.2ghz is not 1.2 million instructions per cycle...it is 1.2 billion cycles per second. How many instructions occur in each cycle Depends on the processor architecture; how many transistors the chip has, the chips instruction set, the bus width, and many other factors. This is why chips with the same clock rating can run at radically different speeds.
Not trying to nitpick, just want to make sure people understand...not all processors are created equal....even if they do operate at the same clock speed.
Hope this helps...
I could have swore ghz was billions of instructions and not millions..
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
UPDATE
I sent the kid an email pointing out the error and he made a correction within 5 minutes.
This phone is packing a 1.2 ghz dual-core processor, and for all of you wondering that is two separate 1.2 ghz processors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cut him some slack... He is 16 and a sophomore in high school. Just needs a little encouragement and correct info.
From Wikipedia
A dual-core processor has two cores (e.g. AMD Phenom II X2, Intel Core Duo), a quad-core processor contains four cores (e.g. AMD Phenom II X4, the Intel 2010 core line that includes 3 levels of quad core processors), and a hexa-core processor contains six cores (e.g. AMD Phenom II X6, Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 980X). A multi-core processor implements multiprocessing in a single physical package. Designers may couple cores in a multi-core device tightly or loosely. For example, cores may or may not share caches, and they may implement message passing or shared memory inter-core communication methods. Common network topologies to interconnect cores include bus, ring, 2-dimensional mesh, and crossbar. Homogeneous multi-core systems include only identical cores, heterogeneous multi-core systems have cores which are not identical. Just as with single-processor systems, cores in multi-core systems may implement architectures such as superscalar, VLIW, vector processing, SIMD, or multithreading.
Multi-core processors are widely used across many application domains including general-purpose, embedded, network, digital signal processing (DSP), and graphics.
--- Effective is 1.2 GHz itself. a single Processing unit but with 2 Cores (instead of single core which has disadvantages of congestion. )
The improvement in performance gained by the use of a multi-core processor depends very much on the software algorithms used and their implementation. In particular, possible gains are limited by the fraction of the software that can be parallelized to run on multiple cores simultaneously; this effect is described by Amdahl's law. In the best case, so-called embarrassingly parallel problems may realize speedup factors near the number of cores, or even more if the problem is split up enough to fit within each core's cache(s), avoiding use of much slower main system memory. Most applications, however, are not accelerated so much. The parallelization of software is a significant ongoing topic of research.
lifted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
heathmcabee said:
Please read the OP again correctly and see that I am referring to the link in that states it is 2 600MHZ processors. I have been building computers for over 10 years with A+ certifications and MSCE. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I was just point out the fact that the website states differently, and I was wondering if this was coincidence or fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't he say DUAL 600MHz processors?
Tapa tapa tapa
mlin said:
Didn't he say DUAL 600MHz processors?
Tapa tapa tapa
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He did, but apparently he fixed it. Guess it was just inexperience on his part.
Cut the high school student a bit of slack... I sent him an email days ago and he corrected the site quickly...
Hi guys,
Given that our superphone uses two cores, I was just wondering how can it be that the temperatures are soaring when playing, say.. Asphalt 6, when with one core (i.e. Galaxy S1) the temperature when playing the same game was burning my hands a bit less. (imo, at least)
If you have two cores, instead of one, doesn't that mean that the work load gets divided in half, and so the processors work half as less?
Of course, this is also related to battery life. Dual cores were supposed to be more energy efficient than single cores.
Just sayin'..
Talbred said:
Hi guys,
If you have two cores, instead of one, doesn't that mean that the work load gets divided in half, and so the processors work half as less?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No this is not correct in practice, only in theoretical examples in powerpoint-slides from those who makes the dual-core processors... Well to be honest there are probably several cases in reality as well, but not as many as the want us to believe.
Games are a typical task that is difficult to load-balance, the usually consist of a few threads, and mostly one thread has the highest load. And when it comes to Tegra 2 and Exynos, both cores have the same clock frequency, so both cores will usually be at full clock frequency during an intensive game.
the true cause, right now the 2.3.x is not Dual Core / Quad Core compatible
so it's wasted processing, basically right now BOTH, yes both CPU are processing the same app at 100%
wait for Ice cream Sandwich 4.0 to be released then it should truely split the load between the 2 CPU instead of 1 CPU doing everything or both CPU doing the same thing in mirror
AllGamer said:
the true cause, right now the 2.3.x is not Dual Core / Quad Core compatible
so it's wasted processing, basically right now BOTH, yes both CPU are processing the same app at 100%
wait for Ice cream Sandwich 4.0 to be released then it should truely split the load between the 2 CPU instead of 1 CPU doing everything or both CPU doing the same thing in mirror
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not really correct, this is what I've learned (but please correct me if I'm mistaken):
The java part (the part in Dalvik virtual machine) of an app cannot use more than one core (this is where all this "not dual core compatible" comes from), but different apps can be on different cores, and even more important:
native code outside of Dalvik VM are handles as usually in Linux, i e no problem to have many threads/processes automatically allocated on different cores. And advanced 3d games most likely have a lot of native code.
Hi!
I'm keen to know if this is running the dual core or the quad core version of the Snapdragon 400?
I've been looking for a reliable source without any luck, so can someone here that actually owns the device verify the number of active cores?
Thank you very much!
bernard black said:
Hi!
I'm keen to know if this is running the dual core or the quad core version of the Snapdragon 400?
I've been looking for a reliable source without any luck, so can someone here that actually owns the device verify the number of active cores?
Thank you very much!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to the internet it has 4 cores. Here is one of the sites I found: http://www.androidbeat.com/2014/07/samsung-gear-live-lg-g-watch-get-teardown-treatment/
GIYF
spiderflash said:
According to the internet it has 4 cores. Here is one of the sites I found: http://www.androidbeat.com/2014/07/samsung-gear-live-lg-g-watch-get-teardown-treatment/
GIYF
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! I guess that it definitely has four cores. It does however say:
It’s also believed that these are simply regulated to use only one core, and one core only.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can someone perhaps run some of the following commands and figure this out? "top -m -d 1 -n 1", "cat /proc/cpuinfo", "cat /proc/version". How many cores are actually available? It seems odd to me that all four cores should be utilized with regard to the very limited battery capacity.
Isn't it strange that they went ahead with such a "powerful" CPU/GPU combination? There are more energy efficient options out there such as the Cortex A7. It's not as powerful of course...but for a smart watch?
bernard black said:
Thanks! I guess that it definitely has four cores. It does however say:
Can someone perhaps run some of the following commands and figure this out? "top -m -d 1 -n 1", "cat /proc/cpuinfo", "cat /proc/version". How many cores are actually available? It seems odd to me that all four cores should be utilized with regard to the very limited battery capacity.
Isn't it strange that they went ahead with such a "powerful" CPU/GPU combination? There are more energy efficient options out there such as the Cortex A7. It's not as powerful of course...but for a smart watch?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This site features a /proc/cpuinfo. All four cores seem enabled in hardware, however, the geekbench results show it is limited to the maximum performance of one core (probably a scheduler tweak).
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/reviewing-android-wears-first-watches-sometimes-promising-often-frustrating/2/
bernard black said:
Isn't it strange that they went ahead with such a "powerful" CPU/GPU combination? There are more energy efficient options out there such as the Cortex A7. It's not as powerful of course...but for a smart watch?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool! My watch have more cores than my computer.
Well, I hope Google or the manufacturer can balance between good performance and battery life as this device replaces regular watch that have battery for half a year. I have no problem charging the watch, but It would be nice if possible to extend the battery life with one or two days extra.
Android Wear should also had an option to minimize battery drain by night. There is no reason that my watch display should be on or the bluetooth activated during night.
kartongsaft said:
Cool! My watch have more cores than my computer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you kidding me? My other computer is 7 years old and already has a quad-core processor.
spiderflash said:
Are you kidding me? My other computer is 7 years old and already has a quad-core processor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately no. I hope that my current computer stops working one day, so I have the reason to buy a new one.
kartongsaft said:
Unfortunately no. I hope that my current computer stops working one day, so I have the reason to buy a new one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My laptop fried 2 years ago, so I built a desktop. Much more fun than buying one.
Thanks Devs, from my LG G2