• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

***Official Galaxy Nexus Pre-Release speculation thread**

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueBiker said:
That sounds right. They'd be rendering the frames into buffers somewhere that aren't mapped to a physical screen, so they wouldn't be bound by the properties of the screen.

It's possible that it's also a way to get numbers above 60fps, in case a particular phone prevents screen updates faster than that.
Click to expand...

And in such a case, the benchmark then is simply measuring a single aspect of iron and is not measuring at all the end-to-end performance as experienced by the user.
 
EarlyMon said:
Yes. And I am well-liked by a one or two of their guys, having provided helpful information from time to time. I do have a lot of respect for them - a whole lot.

But their pedigree does not answer the fundamental question:

Trust for what?

Perfectly ok to benchmark pure iron and perfectly ok to trust them to do that right.

Perfectly ok for me to point out that for the average consumer, that graph may not mean what you think it does.
Click to expand...

oh sure, i don't mean to say that the benchmark is going to translate to real world performance or anything like that. but i think it gives us a decent look of what we can expect from the 4460 :)
 
xtop said:
offscreen 720p to me means that instead of using the devices native resolution, it uses 720p for all devices to get level playing field.

what else could it mean?

edit: also, anandtech is well respected and would not get away with benchmarks that you couldn't trust
Click to expand...

Right, the screen has nothing to do with the processing of the data. It just displays what it can. Heck, you could have NO display and as long as you can output the data to an external source the benchmarks would be just as accurate.

720p would be used instead of 1080p because you would want to stay within reality. When are we going to see a 1080p phone screen? Not for a little while I would bet.
 
HanSolo said:
I don't think we'll have to worry about it. The iPhone 4S cleared out the lemmings. It should be open pastures for us!
Click to expand...

Lol. I think it was EarlyMon giving me subliminal messages that forced the question. A Google search reveals it may have been the Amoled screen shortage causing much of the problem ala Samsung. Forgot about that...well conciously anyway. :D
 
EarlyMon said:
Yes. And I am well-liked by a one or two of their guys, having provided helpful information from time to time. I do have a lot of respect for them - a whole lot.

But their pedigree does not answer the fundamental question:

Trust for what?

Perfectly ok to benchmark pure iron and perfectly ok to trust them to do that right.

Perfectly ok for me to point out that for the average consumer, that graph may not mean what you think it does.
Click to expand...

In the end it is merely a benchmark for the actual processor rather than the device as a whole.
 
3vil said:
In the end it is merely a benchmark for the actual processor rather than the device as a whole.
Click to expand...

That's what I have said repeatedly and from the beginning, thank you (no sarcasm, quite sincere). :)

Nothing wrong with wanting the best iron under the hood. Nothing wrong with understanding the boundary conditions in a complete and exact fashion.

But there about maybe 10 or 12 of us here who understand this nuance.

The THOUSANDS of others reading here just want to know how the whole enchilada works.

So - let's move on? I know I am. ;) :)
 
The_Chief said:
If Samsung decided that it's more profitable to keep their tech in-house and sell it in their own products, rather than farm it out to other companies so everyone looks good, then good on 'em. I'd do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes of course. I think what would be resented by Samsung's customers is if they were sandbagged... e.g., if Samsung made some purchase commitments w/customers who were led to believe the products would be Samsung's latest and greatest, only to have Samsung then suddenly release internally used products containing something even better that those customers had no idea they'd be competing against.

Maybe that was badly worded, I just think the only out-of-bounds play is if you deceptively compete with your own customers.

EarlyMon said:
Perfectly ok to benchmark pure iron and perfectly ok to trust them to do that right.

Perfectly ok for me to point out that for the average consumer, that graph may not mean what you think it does.
Click to expand...

Here's what it comes down to: They're comparing numbers based on how much work can be performed per pixel per unit time, but these phones have a wide distribution of screen sizes and total numbers of pixels.
 
You guys are missing Early's point.

The point isn't that the benchmark is bad in any way.

The point is that it may not be a useful metric. It may, just like Quadrant scores, be a data point that does not necessarily equate to a real use case or a practical user experience.
 
The_Chief said:
Spot on.

No corporation has any obligation to share its technology with ANYONE. A corporation has ONE SINGLE legal responsibility. A fiduciary one. And that is to make the most money for its stockholders.

If Samsung decided that it's more profitable to keep their tech in-house and sell it in their own products, rather than farm it out to other companies so everyone looks good, then good on 'em. I'd do the same thing.

There's anti-competitive (becoming a monopoly) and being SMART. Samsung is being very smart, indeed, by holding back their best tech for their own products.
Click to expand...
Not entirely accurate.

It is somewhat a legal grey area to offer to sell products on the market, and then withhold them from competitors. If they product in question has a monopoly in the industry, then it can quickly jump out of the grey area.

Now, what you are talking about is pure inhouse design, and you have no obligation to sell that to anyone. But if you offer to sell that product on the free market, then there can be some obligations to reasonably supply that product.
 
Just had a thought, and I don't think anyone else has said this. The BMX response to Lee's specs statement made reference to the "rest of the world". Could this suggest that Lee's specs were correct for an unlocked world device and that the BGR specs are correct for the US Verizon exclusive? Would Samsung vary specs to that extent between territories?
 
HanSolo said:
What? Now we're talking about Q1 2013 releases?

I officially no longer care about the CPU in the Prime. Give me an OMAP, an Exynos, or a hamster on a wheel. I don't care.

;)
Click to expand...

Better be one kick-a$$ hamster.

attachment.php
 
akalias said:
Just had a thought, and I don't think anyone else has said this. The BMX response to Lee's specs statement made reference to the "rest of the world". Could this suggest that Lee's specs were correct for an unlocked world device and that the BGR specs are correct for the US Verizon exclusive? Would Samsung vary specs to that extent between territories?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums!

I can't answer that question, but I'd say that the Samsung Galaxy S II ships with three different processors, depending on region or carrier. Some would argue that constitutes a big spec difference in the same-named model.

In this case, I think this is all open to interpretation, yours may be correct - who knows? ;) :)
 
BMX is also saying (now):

who says the event was for nexus? Lmao ok joking but my date stands and unlike others.. I'm never wrong when I give one
Click to expand...

@xRandomx Brian Tassinari
@black_man_x Is there any chance that there will not be a vzw release for the NP?


@black_man_x The Panda King
@xRandomx always a chance... But magic 8ball says no
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the world specs vs. VZW specs, but at least he's referring to the U.S. version as the Nexus Prime and is sticking to November 3.

Seems promising for a pure Google device on VZ in less than a month!
 
akalias said:
Just had a thought, and I don't think anyone else has said this. The BMX response to Lee's specs statement made reference to the "rest of the world". Could this suggest that Lee's specs were correct for an unlocked world device and that the BGR specs are correct for the US Verizon exclusive? Would Samsung vary specs to that extent between territories?
Click to expand...

Hey AK, welcome to the forums!

SGS2 is available with totally different CPU/GPU SoC chipsets, so I'd guess Prime could be also (especially due to radio incompatibilities).
 
HanSolo said:
BMX is also saying (now):





I'm not sure about the world specs vs. VZW specs, but at least he's referring to the U.S. version as the Nexus Prime and is sticking to November 3.

Seems promising for a pure Google device on VZ in less than a month!
Click to expand...

i wouldn't count on that being a confirmation of it being called that. most people just know the device as nexus prime. (although i hope it is, because galaxy nexus is a terrible name)
 
xtop said:
i wouldn't count on that being a confirmation of it being called that. most people just know the device as nexus prime. (although i hope it is, because galaxy nexus is a terrible name)
Click to expand...


I guess I'm just concentrating on the "Nexus" part. Whether it's Prime or Galaxy, I couldn't care less. Someone here said (probably 15 minutes and 20 pages ago) that if it's got "Nexus" in the name, it'll be updated from Google directly, and I agree.

Just seems promising! I've got my optimist cap on today! ;)
 
kastleberg said:
And Steve Jobs, the CEO of Google, has just passed, causing competitor Apple to delay the announcement of the new iPhone...
Click to expand...


And Samsung customers are delighted to find out that the Exynos 4212 will be in the Prime. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom