This was posted in Nook General.
Thought it would be interesting for devs to see here so linkin it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=938747
Nice to see, though i only see mention of OMAP 35XX, not the 36XX (3621) that we use. Though, as a counterpoint, what we relaly have been lacking is updated video drivers, and both the 35xx and 36xx use the same GPU, so perhaps there is some hope it will be useful.
Fifcic said:
The thing to understand is that all the OMAP 3 serires share the same software register interface. the part numbering is based on generation and intended market:
OMAP34xx: High Volume ODM 65nm
OMAP35xx: Embedded Low volume customers (same features as OMAP34xx)
OMAP36xx: High Volume ODM 45nm (Higher clock speed, SGX double clock speed)
AM37xx and DM 37xx: Embedded low volume customers (same features as OMAP36xx)
if you look at the release. this is intended for non ODM customers and enthousiasts access to the SDK they provide to their high volume customer. this is why the OMAP 34and 36 are not mentioned. TI provides them different SDK. the important part is that this provides a stable hardware accelerated kernel with drivers to the comunity.
the OMAP 3621 is an OMAP 3630 nutered. it has the same core but the pins to support pop memory and camera interface are not conected. It is still very powerfull as it still has the DSP and SGX core inside.
I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Updated drivers/dsp, updated linux kernel and bluetooth stack! This should really make for some interesting progress with nookie froyo, BT support, CM7 and possibly even the honeycomb builds
Believe it or not, the Devs do actually look in the general forums too
It may be a typo in the build.prop but it says our processor is armv7 rev2.. Does anyone know if this is actually what's under the hood? I'd be pretty bummed
Pretty sure the processor is based on Arm Cortex A8 so it's last generation but dual core. The SGSII is based on Arm Cortex A9. Not sure how this relates to Armv7 though.
lokhor said:
Pretty sure the processor is based on Arm Cortex A8 so it's last generation but dual core. The SGSII is based on Arm Cortex A9. Not sure how this relates to Armv7 though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was under the same impression but I'm still curious about the build.prop... idk probly just a screw up
From here:
CPU:
Architecture: ARM v7
ARM core: ARM Cortex-A9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like there are 2 different ones. One for the chipset, one for the cores themselves. Chipset is ARM v7, Cores are A9
Also, I have no clue WTF any of this means. Google + 30 seconds = Some possibly useful info.
Edit: Okies, after doing some looking: There's no v8, only v7. The Cortex A9 is a subcategory of that, like different versions of it. Like we have gingerbread, 2.3. You can have subcategories of 2.3.3, 2.3.4, etc, which are all patches with improvements. So the CPU runs on ARM v7-A9, if that makes more sense...
Of course, this is how the processor is built, so it's not like it can be "Patched" to the newer versions when they come out... So that's just an example, to make it easier to understand.
The Scorpion CPU is a modified Cortex A8. ALL newer Cortex Ax CPUs are based on the ARMv7 instruction set architecture (ISA.)
Summary:
CPU is based on ARM's ARMv7 instruction set architecture intellectual property, which is branded Cortex A8. (Newer TI OMAP, and the Exynos are Cortex A9, basically unmodified, but are *still* using the ARMv7 ISA.)
Ergo, ARMv7 --> instruction set architecture, Cortex A8 --> configuration/branding.
APOLAUF said:
The Scorpion CPU is a modified Cortex A8. ALL newer Cortex Ax CPUs are based on the ARMv7 instruction set architecture (ISA.)
Summary:
CPU is based on ARM's ARMv7 instruction set architecture intellectual property, which is branded Cortex A8. (Newer TI OMAP, and the Exynos are Cortex A9, basically unmodified, but are *still* using the ARMv7 ISA.)
Ergo, ARMv7 --> instruction set architecture, Cortex A8 --> configuration/branding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah hah. Thankyou. Someone who knows what they're talking about, and isn't just pulling stuff out of their search engine.
BlaydeX15 said:
Ah hah. Thankyou. Someone who knows what they're talking about, and isn't just pulling stuff out of their search engine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad to help. I will be starting as junior faculty at the University of Louisville, and I'm teaching microprocessor design, so I hope I can remember all this! ARM definitely has made quite a salad of their branding. For instance, the classic ARM9 CPU is based on ARMv5, while the ARM7 is based on ARMv4 (if I'm not mistaken - I have a few of the dev boards lying around somewhere... there were actually variants of the 7 and the 9 that were both under v4 and v5 ISAs). The ARM11 (which was found in the newer 400MHz+ pocket PCs and smartphones of old) used the ARMv6 architecture, and all Cortex use ARMv7. What a mess! I guess that's what happens when you just create CPU core intellectual property, without manufacturing a single chip.
APOLAUF said:
Glad to help. I will be starting as junior faculty at the University of Louisville, and I'm teaching microprocessor design, so I hope I can remember all this! ARM definitely has made quite a salad of their branding. For instance, the classic ARM9 CPU is based on ARMv5, while the ARM7 is based on ARMv4 (if I'm not mistaken - I have a few of the dev boards lying around somewhere... there were actually variants of the 7 and the 9 that were both under v4 and v5 ISAs). The ARM11 (which was found in the newer 400MHz+ pocket PCs and smartphones of old) used the ARMv6 architecture, and all Cortex use ARMv7. What a mess! I guess that's what happens when you just create CPU core intellectual property, without manufacturing a single chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got an iPaq sitting here...I didn't even realize it was sitting here until you said ARM11 and then I looked down in back of my keyboard, saw that and a giant whooshing sounded flew through my head and reminded me that after reading all of your posts and thinking to myself "this guy really knows his stuff...wow, I doubt I could ever know all of that stuff" that, in fact, I already did in a previous life....lol.
But as you already stated (in different words) "Knowing" is the easy part, remembering is the hard part and to that end you have one upped me.
...wow, bizarre feeling, lol, thanks...
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
stimpyshaun said:
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is a modified ARM8 ISA CPU that uses the ARMv7 instruction set, Cortex is a branding.
...that is correct, and if it isn't swap a couple acronyms and numbers around and it will be.
if you r curious here are some links talking about how the scorpion core is similar and different from both a8 and a9
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3632/anands-google-nexus-one-review/8
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4144/...gra-2-review-the-first-dual-core-smartphone/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3632/anands-google-nexus-one-review/9
stimpyshaun said:
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct in that the Scorpion cannot be technically branded as an A8. Qualcomm licenses the ARMv7 ISA and basic core design (which ARM called Cortex A8) (when we implement these in FPGA, we call them softcores - kinda kinky. ). Qualcomm, when designing their initial Snapdragon, essentially gave a checklist to ARM for the reference design that they wanted their IP library to use.
For instance, Intel marketed the PXA 255 and PXA 270-series CPUs. (HTC PPC 6700 and Dell Axims, anyone? ). Despite being a CPU innovator in the desktop realm, the cores were still based on ARM reference designs - Intel's mobile division selected the reference they wanted, added MMX, etc., and then went to fab with it. By the same token, the Scorpion was based on ARMv7 ISA, which in its initial incarnation, as used by Qualcomm, was the Cortex A8. What came out of that is, logically, different, but related enough, the same way the PXAs were ARM11 reference desgins (ARMv6.) Qualcomm added the NEON instruction set, as well as out-of-order execution, for example, something the other Cortex CPUs didn't have (this may have changed with the A9), in order to increase data and instruction-level parallelism. They also added the ability to perform fine-grain CPU clock frequency and voltage throttling, much more so than in the stock A8 reference.
I guess in the long run, if they don't update their references to an A9 IP library variant, or perhaps something newer down the road, the Scorpion will start lagging behind the competition rather significantly. Not that I'm complaining at the moment, I love my 3vo's performance as it is.
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
here it says qualcomm does not use arms cortex reference designs but infact designed its own
if it is wrong than blame qualcomm... if I am misunderstanding it please explain
stimpyshaun said:
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
here it says qualcomm does not use arms cortex reference designs but infact designed its own
if it is wrong than blame qualcomm... if I am misunderstanding it please explain
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boy, they certainly make it sound that way! My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That they don't use the reference design is clear - the end-product isn't the same product that is the core design in the Cortex/v7 spec. However, I don't think that Qualcomm has the capital and the resources to do a full-scale, ground-up build of a CPU. Note that even Intel didn't do this (!) when they entered (and then promptly exited) the mobile CPU-building business.
The Qualcomm processor design team most-likely chooses attributes and then custom-designs additional features and configurations, and Qc does have the fabs to produce the silicon to state-of-the-art, or (state-of-the-art - 1) process technologies, as is clear from their stated transistor design (with a certain leakage factor) and feature size (45nm - keeping in mind that Samsung has this down to 32nm (you might want to check me on that, this may be a lie )).
So, let me restate my original opinion - I value your inputs, and this document certainly does its best to make the CPU look unique in the market. My understanding is that a certain core of the IP library is still present in the A8 format from ARM. It's entirely possible that none of the original architecture was kept in its native forms - design, routing, and layout might all be different, but I think ultimately, the CPU finds its roots in part of the original A8 design. To simply use the ISA without *any* reference to the original A8, I think, is beyond Qualcomm's capabilities, at least at present.
I suppose a reasonable example may be seen in the car world. Take the Lexus ES series vs. the Toyota Camry (just to name a plain-jane, basic example that most people would know.) The ES looks, performs, and runs differently. It has different features, a different pricetag, and many different interior and even engine-bay features (and probably a larger engine.) But ultimately, it is just an altered Camry. The extent of the alterations here is the question (and bringing an analog to an ISA into the automotive domain is tricky - maybe the use of an engine and 4 wheels? ). Anyway, perhaps only Qualcomm knows the answer, but well done sir, in bringing an in-depth discussion to the table.
To put this into layman's terms:
You can mostly think of the term "architecture" as being a language that the CPU speaks, and the software must therefore be written in that language (or as programmers refer to it, being compiled into that language.) Android apps speak java bytecode to the dalvik engine, which then translates and speaks ARMv7 to the CPU. Different phones can run on different architectures and still have the apps be compatible because the dalvik engine can be compiled for each different architecture.
Now, the "core" in this sense is the specific implementation of that architecture. The easiest analogy to that I can think of, is that intel and AMD CPU's both use the x86 architecture, but their implementations are way different. They are designed far different from one another, but in the end they speak the same language more or less.
There are variations to the ARM "language" which is indicated by the revision number (ARMv7) just as there are variations to the x86 "language." For example, you have x86 32-bit and you have x86 64-bit, and then there are extensions to x86 such as SSE, 3dnow, etc. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.
Hi, i'm fairly new into this, but it got me interested, i've been reading about some "cheap high performance" processors, such as de renesas ev2 and the rk2918, with the ev2, some manofacturers do say that it is possible to use android honeycomb, the ev2 is a decent for the price dual core procesor, with a gpu that performs really close to the qualcomm mali that was on the first ipad (about 15m p/s) , the cpu is arm9. The rockchip does excel in 3d performance, its neon gpu is said to be able to get 60m p/s, while the processor itself is not bad, is A8 clocked at 1.2 ghz, single core. With this being told, i'm wondering if rk2918 devices will be able to run smoothly the soon to be released ics, or atleast the honeycomb (its source has not been released yet), or even though the ev2 has a worse gpu, is still a better pick? thanks in advance for your comments (except if they are insults)
Still wondering if processors suck as the rk2918 or the ev2 will be good enough to run a newer release of android, other than gingerbread, regards.
I wanted to make a custom PC build but I wanted to ask you what processor recommended. My search on wallapop is Intel Core i5, but which version recommended? Link to my search
@CzechosDrama,
When looking for anything you want to purchase, build, repair, install, or uninstall. Always do research yourself as that will get you the best results. Luckily, Google has all the information you need for free to do this research, not to mention pricing and availability. Google is your friend.
Thank you!
thisguy12win
Jason Tollakson
If I was to do a PC build though. In regards to a processor I would go with the Intel i7. It's really fast and reliable.
Thank you!
thisguy12win
But you are building a pc for office or a gaming pc? this is very relevant
thisguy12win said:
If I was to do a PC build though. In regards to a processor I would go with the Intel i7. It's really fast and reliable.
Thank you!
thisguy12win
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your recomendation, gotta check on wallapop to see a low cost and good i7 proccesor.
CzechosDrama said:
I wanted to make a custom PC build but I wanted to ask you what processor recommended. My search on wallapop is Intel Core i5, but which version recommended? Link to my search
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it's not too late, here's some important things to know:
1. The biggest mistake people make is that they always classify processors by i3, 5, 7 and 9. Don't do this. Each processor is different based on its generation. For example, the 12th gen October 2021) i5-12600K is much faster than the 11th gen i9-11900K (March 2021), even though the number is lower.
2. There are always two types of i5 CPUs in each generation:
- i5-#400
- i5-#600
Where # is the generation number.
i5 600 CPUs are better than i5 400 CPUs but are more expensive.
3. Intel has different letters at the end of some CPUs, the main ones to know are:
K - This means that the chip is unlocked, meaning you can overclock it without voiding warranty. For any processor that is 12th gen or newer, it also means they get extra cores.
F - No integrated graphics. If you get a CPU ending with F (e.g: 12400F, 11600KF), your PC will not work unless you brought a separate graphics card (which you probably will). As a return, F CPUs are cheaper than the non-F versions.
On top of all that, i7 and i9 are still options depending on the generation.
It all depends on your budget and what you need from your PC.
I know that seemed way too complicated, so let me help you pick a CPU. Just tell me your budget and what you want your PC for.
A3RNAV said:
If it's not too late, here's some important things to know:
1. The biggest mistake people make is that they always classify processors by i3, 5, 7 and 9. Don't do this. Each processor is different based on its generation. For example, the 12th gen October 2021) i5-12600K is much faster than the 11th gen i9-11900K (March 2021), even though the number is lower.
2. There are always two types of i5 CPUs in each generation:
- i5-#400
- i5-#600
Where # is the generation number.
i5 600 CPUs are better than i5 400 CPUs but are more expensive.
3. Intel has different letters at the end of some CPUs, the main ones to know are:
K - This means that the chip is unlocked, meaning you can overclock it without voiding warranty. For any processor that is 12th gen or newer, it also means they get extra cores.
F - No integrated graphics. If you get a CPU ending with F (e.g: 12400F, 11600KF), your PC will not work unless you brought a separate graphics card (which you probably will). As a return, F CPUs are cheaper than the non-F versions.
On top of all that, i7 and i9 are still options depending on the generation.
It all depends on your budget and what you need from your PC.
I know that seemed way too complicated, so let me help you pick a CPU. Just tell me your budget and what you want your PC for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My budget is 30€-80€ and I want my pc for gaming, surfing the internet and testing VMs (maybe).
What exactly is your full budget (like for everything)? I would personally recommend spending a bigger part of your budget towards your CPU. Ideally you would want a 6-core CPU, but the best thing I can find under 80 is an Intel i3-10100F from 2019 on sale.
CzechosDrama said:
I wanted to make a custom PC build but I wanted to ask you what processor recommended. My search on wallapop is Intel Core i5, but which version recommended? Link to my search
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would go with a AMD Ryzen CPU, they come with built in Vega graphics that perform really well in gaming, meaning, you won't have to buy a graphics card, if you go with an Intel CPU, you will have to buy a graphics card. AMD is a real cost saver because they are cheaper than Intel and come with excellent built in graphics.
That's actually true. The integrated graphics are really good, and you can easily get a 2nd or 3rd gen Ryzen 3 or 5 for a good price now. If you ever need to upgrade your GPU down the line the older RX series is also dropping in price
13th Gen i5 or i7 if you've got a broader budget. i9 isn't worth it the money.
Ryzen are decent, I've got one, but the Intel 13th Gen outperforms them this round.