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

***Official HTC Incredible Thread***

Status
Not open for further replies.
shawn487 said:
yes i noticed that you beat me to it after i posted lol
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a little confirmation. I couldn't find anything about the slower snapdragon earlier today, just like you and Droidav8r, when that code or whatever was posted. But I decided to hedge my bet and thats why I simply asked for the model numbers.
 
Outatime said:
I still haven't seen anything on the Incredible that would warrant waiting for it when the Nexus One will probably be available on VZW on the 23rd of this month. 5 MP vs 8 MP camera? I couldn't care less. The crappy little sensor on phone cameras suck no matter how many pixels you give them. The form factor on the Nexus One seems nicer to me too.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing too but with the hardware issues (screen mostly) that are popping up with the N1 I cannot see the justification in buying one and having to swap out for a refurb (if available) after 3 months..........if they will even allow that.

Unless Verizon sells and supports the N1 I am staying far away from it.
 
blue rocket said:
My question is...how come all of these leaked shots of the Incredible are so AWFUL in quality. Something here seems a bit off. If i knew i would have 5 minutes with the phone i would be taking glamour shots in 10mp glory for all of those 5 minutes. Why are these pics so small and blurry, and I don't want the excuse that maybe he didnt have a good camera. Everyone has a good camera!
Click to expand...

Maybe he was using an iPhone.

Ba, Da, Bump. ;)
 
So once again, i may be right about it just being underclocked. Great

As for why you might want 1ghz. Well, there was a test done before on web browsing and how fast the pages load etc..and as i said before. Flash when it comes out will probably see a pretty big benefit with the 1ghz instead of 768mhz.
 
Mykpfsu said:
What I wonder is if the code/output results listed is not 3 separate chips, but rather the same chip clocked at 3 different frequencies just like (as you said) you can over or under clock your computer (unless you're me then the damn thing just blows up). Heck there is mention in that code/output results of 384mhz. Is that a 4th chip?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think that's the same chip runing at different speeds.

As for my computer, let's put it this way: 1 out of every 5 times what I do works. The rest of the time its either highly unstable, or it won't post. My luck sounds like it's just about the same as yours.
 
Evolved said:
That is exactly it! A. there is no product info, B. if there was it wouldn't qualify as a Snapdragon since that title is reserved for the 1Ghz processor we are familiar with, C. Verizon does more thorough testing than AT&T or T-Mobile so it is pretty reasonable to assume they would never put a "failed" processor in a phone they are going to sell even if it performs perfectly at a lower level regardless of whether it is a flagship or not.

To read code talking about changing Mhz/Ghz from 768mhz to 998mhz to 1.27Ghz and then go off and spread misinformation about 3 versions of the Snapdragon is ridiculous.

Find us a credible source and cite it. Until then, save your info and present it when it holds weight.

EDIT: only the 1st paragraph applies to DroidAV8R as the rest was reserved for the person who posted the bad info about 3 versions of the Snapdragon.
Click to expand...


I was wrong. I'm sorry. I didn't originate that information, I was just trying to pass it on, but it seems to be false.

But it's not as illogical as you think. When processor manufacturers such as intel rate processors, they do stability tests and then usually rate them below where they are perfectly stable to create a safe zone buffer. say Intel does tests and finds a processor stable at 3.2 GHz, then they will rate it as a 2.8 GHz processor. This is a very common practice with processors, and they aren't considered "failed" processors, but are just lower rated. I thought this would be plausible for the Snapdragon chips, but like you I was unable to find any corroborating evidence.

Once again, I should have done more research instead of relying on that post being accurate, so that's my bad, but it's not like that was a totally rediculous explanation for why it was rated lower.
 
woodraskam said:
I was wrong. I'm sorry. I didn't originate that information, I was just trying to pass it on, but it seems to be false.

But it's not as illogical as you think. When processor manufacturers such as intel rate processors, they do stability tests and then usually rate them below where they are perfectly stable to create a safe zone buffer. say Intel does tests and finds a processor stable at 3.2 GHz, then they will rate it as a 2.8 GHz processor. This is a very common practice with processors, and they aren't considered "failed" processors, but are just lower rated. I thought this would be plausible for the Snapdragon chips, but like you I was unable to find any corroborating evidence.

Once again, I should have done more research instead of relying on that post being accurate, so that's my bad, but it's not like that was a totally rediculous explanation for why it was rated lower.
Click to expand...

What I have read on the internet is that the QSD8650 can run up to 1.3GHz well above the 1.0GHz, making the 1.0GHz the safe zone.
 
Steven58 said:
Personally, I am not worried about wearing him out for the bottom of the 9th because I'm a NY Yankees fan and we have MARIANO BABY!! :D
Click to expand...

Spankees fan?!? Well, now THAT explains a LOT! :rolleyes:

YankeesSuck7.jpg
 
NKT said:
At this stage of testing, they don't test different versions. The only different may be software. Hardware is pretty set.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then it's certainaly plausible that the CPU could be clocked back up to 1Ghz before the final release. :cool:
 
For those who have been recently talking about the clock rate. This was discussed before, granted it would be hard to find in the 15+ pages today. ;)

Mandrew said:
Note: ALL credit for this goes to coolbho3000 from Engadget. I just found this interesting...

768MHz is NOT underclocked. Qualcomm's source clearly says there is a 768MHz part, presumably available to OEMs at a lower cost.

For the technically inclined: https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/q...274bcca7966c626f50cabe4dfe9819c;hb=eclair_rum

According to the source, there's three versions of the QSD8x50 chip: a 768MHz part, a 998MHz part (in the Nexus One), and a 1.267GHz part.

Acer Liquid users have trouble reaching 1GHz with custom kernels without overvolting beyond what the Nexus One has its Snapdragon set at.

Of course, HTC could have bought the 1GHz part and underclocked it - but that would be a waste of money. The Liquid/Incredible Snapdragon is a slower, lower cost part. End of story.
Click to expand...
In the link, lines 669, 673, and 676 referr to the clock speeds.
 
woodraskam said:
I was wrong. I'm sorry. I didn't originate that information, I was just trying to pass it on, but it seems to be false.

But it's not as illogical as you think. When processor manufacturers such as intel rate processors, they do stability tests and then usually rate them below where they are perfectly stable to create a safe zone buffer. say Intel does tests and finds a processor stable at 3.2 GHz, then they will rate it as a 2.8 GHz processor. This is a very common practice with processors, and they aren't considered "failed" processors, but are just lower rated. I thought this would be plausible for the Snapdragon chips, but like you I was unable to find any corroborating evidence.

Once again, I should have done more research instead of relying on that post being accurate, so that's my bad, but it's not like that was a totally rediculous explanation for why it was rated lower.
Click to expand...

You saw what Mandrew posted way back on pg 106 and it was impressive (hell I still don't know exactly what it is) so you repeated it, it happens. Yes chip makers will rate their chips lower then they can max sustain. But that always makes a new model number. I just think its important to know what the model the chip is for certain because if the model number changes then other features of the snapdragon may be missing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom