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.
So in 2011 we have Tegra 2, in 2012 we have Tegra 3 so my questions is what will come in 2013? Octo-core or an improved version of quad core cpus?
Fasty12 said:
So in 2011 we have Tegra 2, in 2012 we have Tegra 3 so my questions is what will come in 2013? Octo-core or an improved version of quad core cpus?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as octo core desktop CPUs havnt really caught on yet I would guess just better quad cores likely with more powerful GPUs
Tegra 3 is already very powerful, presuming the will increase ram and make them more battery efficient or even higher clock speed. 12 core tegra gpu is pretty amazing already and anything better must be godly
Sent from my HTC Desire using xda app-developers app
If u mean for mobile platform , Will we really need beyond Quad core, having seen how SGSIII is smoothly running with it, beyond that what more perfection ( yaa still more can be expected) and speed u will need to do ur work . As known Android use other cores on need basis , why u need to see ur 2-3 cores never used.. i think its just more curiosity n to have more advaced/latest will be the only reason to have such high cpu on ur mobile..
What I like to see is ups in RAM installed and lows in RAM usage by system...
Sounds like octo-mom..the debate.lives on.. battery vs performance...but to answer your question I think it would be hexa-core which is 6..let's wait and see what is to come...
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
s-X-s said:
If u mean for mobile platform , Will we really need beyond Quad core, having seen how SGSIII is smoothly running with it, beyond that what more perfection ( yaa still more can be expected) and speed u will need to do ur work . As known Android use other cores on need basis , why u need to see ur 2-3 cores never used.. i think its just more curiosity n to have more advaced/latest will be the only reason to have such high cpu on ur mobile..
What I like to see is ups in RAM installed and lows in RAM usage by system...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Cores are at there peak right now. The amount of CPU power we have especially in the higher end phones is enough to acomplish many, many things. RAM is somewhat of an issue especially since multitasking is a huge part of android. I really thing a 2gb RAM should be a standard soon. Also, better gpu's won't hurt
Sent from my HTC T328w using Tapatalk 2
If they decide to keep going on the core upgrade in the next two or so years, I see one of two possibilities happening:
1) Dual Processor phones utilizing either dual or quad cores.
or
2) Hexacore chips since on the desktop market there's already a few 6-core chips (though whether or not they would actually be practical in the phones architecture, no clue).
Generally speaking whatever they come out with next will either need a better battery material, or lower power processors.
I mean I'm pretty amazed by what my brother's HTC One X is capable of with the quad core, and here I am still sporting a single-core G2. But yes I would like to see more advancement in RAM usage, we got a nice bit of power, but how bout a standard 2GB ram for better multitasking?
I believe 2013 will be all about more efficient quad-cores.
May i ask what going from 1gb to 2gb will improve? Loading times?
hello everyone, could you tell me what is cuad core?
Quad core means that a processor has four processing units.
Because there are more, that means that a process, theoretically, gets executed 4 times faster.
Read more about it: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
Maybe i7 in mobile devices?
I'm sure it will stay at quad core cpu's, anything more is just overkill. They may introduce hyperthreading. It's going to boil down to efficiency.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
I'd say the future lies in more efficient use of processors. Right now, Android is still far from optimized on multi-core processor-equipped devices. Project Butter is the start of a great movement by Google to optimize the operating system. Hopefully it spreads out to other OEMs and becomes the main focus for Android development.
Improving and optimizing current processors is the way hardware companies should go.
In my opinion, processor development is out running battery development. Optimized processors could reduce power consumption while preserving excellent speed and usability.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2
building processors on more efficient ARM architectures is going to be the way to go from what I see......throwing four less efficient cores at a problem is the caveman method to dealing with it.....looking at you Samsung Exynos Quad based on tweaked A9 cores.....
the A15 based Qualcomm S4 Krait is more efficient on a clock for clock core for core basis and once the software catches up and starts using the hardware in full capacity, less more efficient cores will be preferred
I dont see anything beyond quads simply because they havent even scratched the surface of what can be done with a modern dual core processor yet.......throwing more cores at it only makes excuses for poor code.....i can shoot **** faster than water with a big enough pump......but that doesn't mean that's the better solution
We don't need more cores! Having more than 2 cores will not make a difference so quad cores are a waste of space in the CPU die.
Hyperthreading, duh.
More ram. Got to have the hardware before the software can be made to use it.
With the convergence of x86 into the Android core and the streamlining of low-power Atom CPUs, the logical step would be to first optimize the current software base for multi-core processors before marketing takes over with their stupid x2 multiplying game...
Not long ago, a senior Intel exec went on record saying that today, a single core CPU Android smartphone is perhaps better overall performing (battery life, user experience, etc) than any dual/quad-core CPU. Mind you, these guys seldom if ever stick out their neck with such bold statements, especially when not pleasing to the ear...
For those interested, you can follow this one (of many) articles on the subject: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/intel-android-not-ready-for-multi-core-cpus/20746
Android needs to mature, and I think it actually is. With 4.1 we see the focus drastically shifted to optimization, UX and performance with *existing/limited* resources. This will translate to devices beating all else in battery life, performance and graphics but since it was neglected in the first several iterations, it is likely we see 4.0 followed by 4.1 then maybe 4.2 before we hear/see the 5.0 which will showcase maturity and evolution of the experience.
Just my 2c. :fingers-crossed:
I know that the ARM architecture is based on low-power mobile processing, but with upcoming release of the new Hardkernel ODROID development boards, at at a price tag of $89 for the ODROID-U2 and a Exynos 4412 Prime CPU, and supporting Ubuntu, I'm almost tempted to try it out as a desktop replacement.
But I'm wondering, how fast would it really be? Compared to Intel? Or is it impossible to say?
mvmacd said:
I know that the ARM architecture is based on low-power mobile processing, but with upcoming release of the new Hardkernel ODROID development boards, at at a price tag of $89 for the ODROID-U2 and a Exynos 4412 Prime CPU, and supporting Ubuntu, I'm almost tempted to try it out as a desktop replacement.
But I'm wondering, how fast would it really be? Compared to Intel? Or is it impossible to say?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've read around the Odroid forums, the performance of the Prime is supposed to be on par with first gen i3 processors, which is pretty descent for a mobile processor. They are also working on an overclock app that will allow the cpu to scale to 2Ghz per core. I plan on getting the odroid-u2 and I already have the odroid-x:laugh:
jwhisl said:
From what I've read around the Odroid forums, the performance of the Prime is supposed to be on par with first gen i3 processors, which is pretty descent for a mobile processor. They are also working on an overclock app that will allow the cpu to scale to 2Ghz per core. I plan on getting the odroid-u2 and I already have the odroid-x:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am considering getting one as well for basic testing and developmentment but I also one to use one as a media player it doesn't seem to support many files due to licensing issues
absolutely!
I have been eyeing on these mini-PCs/SBCs(Single board computer) for quite a long time.
Guess I will be getting this sweet little baby soon (ODROID-U2)
Apart from 2GB of RAM (which is ineffect the best at this price point and across all the similar boards) it beats the Tegra 3 by quite a margin
I got around to looking at some pretty powerful mobile devices, and found that the Lenovo K900 is pretty darn excellent. Its Intel Atom processor can be overclocked to beyond 2.2 GHz, and it has dual cores too.
Here's a short overview of the device:
1.Intel Atom Z2580 Dual core 2.0Ghz
2. 2GB Ram (LPDDR2).
3.Android V4.2 (not really a big make or break on PS2 emulation, but whatever).
I know this is not powerful enough for ideal gaming, but isn't it possible to port PCSX2 to Android and supported libraries, and manage to get somewhat emulation going and some games at low FPS?
I don't see why not ... I have heard of people using PCSX2 under 2.5 GHz processors on Windows, single core, and it was arguably "playable" to some.
Assuming this is not the highest-end smartphone in the market but still has pretty good specs, wouldn't a device a bit more powerful than this one come close to taking the cake?
In short, I believe PS2 emulation could be done on some high-end smartphones (like this one) now, just not "good FPS/emulation" yet.
Any rebuttal? The S5 from Samsung should be arriving soon, and they will be even more powerful. Somebody should help me port PCSX2, or at least create an open, community project to do so. As time goes on, updates can be made for the more powerful hardware in time.