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

LG G3 Pre-release/Rumor/Speculation Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
EarlyMon said:
First, we don't know if the higher capabilites of the 805 will come at a significant battery cost. I care more about balanced battery performance than top of the line.
Click to expand...

Same here. Tbh (not talking to EM here but more of a soliloquy), my hope for the 805 was not so much for the CPU, it was for the known, paired GPU (Adreno 420). They are saying north of 30% more efficient with 40% getting a mention although that may be erring toward Qualcomm's take on the matter. :D
 
EarlyMon said:
I don't really remember - I think that the benchmarks told me that the phone I have is 5 to 8 times as fast as my 2010 model.

But it's not.

It's just some faster and then I use more complicated apps more often.

As for feeling compassion for DoglyMon, that's between you two. Most people don't refer to him as the dog, but again - that's between y'all, although, my best hint is come armed with cheeseburgers.

Sometimes he just grabs my phone and posts, mainly thanks to voice recognition.

He's often right about things.
Click to expand...

Lol Thank for the insight.
And as for the upgrade... 801 is an upgrade to 800 because with 801 you can have 2k screen as supposed to 800 which I think isn't optimized for native 2k screen resolution. When I talk about upgrade I don't only focus on the performance aspect but in all the general phone capabilities driven either by hardware (cpu,gpu, chips, etc) to make the phone actually another level ahead. Suppose since you have a new 805 developers will be more confident to push more detail and graphics into their game to make use of the fill power of the new chip. So because newer chip provides better performance and efficiency and optimizing, apps, task, modules, software starts to translate and add to their resources to utilize more of the power provided by new chip.

You can say, with more tools and capabilities in your arsenal, you have a wider range of ideas etc to explore and experiment.
 
2k+S801 would perform worse than S800+FHD it would perform like(or slightly worse than) S600+FHD(S4,One 2013) according to the leaked glbenchmarks recently

I would definitely not want something that would perform worse(or same) to last years flagships ,but then again this is strictly with a POV for gaming .

Battery life will improve for sure as it also depends on many more factors.
 
drexappeal said:
I'd love to challenge your theory, EM. You know that my theories are always driven by how products are marketed. There is no way I can see 9/10 consumers going to by a new or upgraded smartphone, saying "Oh, this only has the 801 prpcessor... I'll pass." That's the bottom line. I'd be shocked if even 3/10 (30%) of the general consumer would know that and prefer that over a screen "looking good."
Click to expand...

And yet Qualcomm gave them numbers precisely so that consumers could comparison shop.

Within the industry they still carry the true monikers like APQ8084 and MSM8994. 805 is a marketing number.

I'm not saying that people say what you said they don't say.

I'm saying that people say, "Hmmm, one of these will come to about $260 on contract, the other about $290. What do these cards tell me? This one says Qualcomm 400, this one says Qualcomm 800. Ok, for whatever reason, I know why this one costs more, it's got moar Qualcomms."

I'd be shocked if less than 30% didn't do that.

The Moto X, according to press idiots and even a former semiconductor executive writing for a financial rag that I argued with, insisted that it used the older S4 Pro.

It was in fact a dual core 600 but because Qualcomm insisted that there would be no such thing, it took a different marketing name - S4 Pro.

Don't even start me on how there has never been a technology named Super LCD.

Straying from the point?

Not really.

Silicon costs, they want a return on the investment.

So SoC numbers are very much the new buzzwords.

And buzzwords are easier to market.

Qualcomm 805 can mean it's an APQ or MSM part. Therefore, 805 says zero about what really matters. Just great marketing that it's the newest quad core.

TL/DR -

If the general public is not responsive to silicon marketing, how come they've invented meaningless SoC names just for consumer spec sheets and advertising?
 
EarlyMon said:
And yet Qualcomm gave them numbers precisely so that consumers could comparison shop.

Within the industry they still carry the true monikers like APQ8084 and MSM8994. 805 is a marketing number.

I'm not saying that people say what you said they don't say.

I'm saying that people say, "Hmmm, one of these will come to about $260 on contract, the other about $290. What do these cards tell me? This one says Qualcomm 400, this one says Qualcomm 800. Ok, for whatever reason, I know why this one costs more, it's got moar Qualcomms."

I'd be shocked if less than 30% didn't do that.

The Moto X, according to press idiots and even a former semiconductor executive writing for a financial rag that I argued with, insisted that it used the older S4 Pro.

It was in fact a dual core 800 but because Qualcomm insisted that there would be no such thing, it took a different marketing name - S4 Pro.

Don't even start me on how there has never been a technology named Super LCD.

Straying from the point?

Not really.

Silicon costs, they want a return on the investment.

So SoC numbers are very much the new buzzwords.

And buzzwords are easier to market.

Qualcomm 805 can mean it's an APQ or MSM part. Therefore, 805 says zero about what really matters. Just great marketing that it's the newest quad core.

TL/DR -

If the general public is not responsive to silicon marketing, how come they've invented meaningless SoC names just for consumer spec sheets and advertising?
Click to expand...

Unless there has been a research with hard statistics is really hard knowing nowadays. I admit that before it was streams but I have seen as much as people with knowledge as well as people without. Every place is different. And marketing has also impact the sales, Samsung being a proof of that. Camera megapixel also comes into consideration for casual consumers and there is various factors.
 
iowabowtech said:
Same here. Tbh (not talking to EM here but more of a soliloquy), my hope for the 805 was not so much for the CPU, it was for the known, paired GPU (Adreno 420). They are saying north of 30% more efficient with 40% getting a mention although that may be erring toward Qualcomm's take on the matter. :D
Click to expand...

I would agree but if it's the difference between an MSM type 801 with the world modem on board, and an APQ 805 requiring a separate modem chip to be powered and dealt with, then I'd be finding the choice even tougher.

Anyway, I already want an 810 lol.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8035/qualcomm-snapdragon-805-performance-preview
 
EarlyMon said:
And yet Qualcomm gave them numbers precisely so that consumers could comparison shop.

Within the industry they still carry the true monikers like APQ8084 and MSM8994. 805 is a marketing number.

I'm not saying that people say what you said they don't say.

I'm saying that people say, "Hmmm, one of these will come to about $260 on contract, the other about $290. What do these cards tell me? This one says Qualcomm 400, this one says Qualcomm 800. Ok, for whatever reason, I know why this one costs more, it's got moar Qualcomms."

I'd be shocked if less than 30% didn't do that.

The Moto X, according to press idiots and even a former semiconductor executive writing for a financial rag that I argued with, insisted that it used the older S4 Pro.

It was in fact a dual core 800 but because Qualcomm insisted that there would be no such thing, it took a different marketing name - S4 Pro.

Don't even start me on how there has never been a technology named Super LCD.

Straying from the point?

Not really.

Silicon costs, they want a return on the investment.

So SoC numbers are very much the new buzzwords.

And buzzwords are easier to market.

Qualcomm 805 can mean it's an APQ or MSM part. Therefore, 805 says zero about what really matters. Just great marketing that it's the newest quad core.

TL/DR -

If the general public is not responsive to silicon marketing, how come they've invented meaningless SoC names just for consumer spec sheets and advertising?
Click to expand...

To squash your theory,

Galaxy Note 3 - Snapdragon 800
Galaxy S5 / HTC M8 - Snapdragon 801

Yet, the Note 3 is more expensive on contract still. They are not gonna choose the S5 over the Note 3 because of the 801. They are gonna choose based on need and importance of features.

But, my theories have already been proven over years of sales and marketing research done by many companies. Your theories... I'd love to see proof that what you are saying is morre evident nowadays.

Just to draw a correlation, have you ever seen the bits that Letterman used to do, trying to ask people if they know the words to the pledge of allegiance or if they can name the 7 continents? Many people they show, have no clue. Granted, that's edited, but I still challenge anyone to prove your theories true.
 
Cakeisspy said:
2k+S801 would perform worse than S800+FHD it would perform like(or slightly worse than) S600+FHD(S4,One 2013) according to the leaked glbenchmarks recently

I would definitely not want something that would perform worse(or same) to last years flagships ,but then again this is strictly with a POV for gaming .

Battery life will improve for sure as it also depends on many more factors.
Click to expand...

All else being equal, more pixels always results in lower graphics benchmarks.
 
drexappeal said:
To squash your theory,

Galaxy Note 3 - Snapdragon 800
Galaxy S5 / HTC M8 - Snapdragon 801

Yet, the Note 3 is more expensive on contract still. They are not gonna choose the S5 over the Note 3 because of the 801.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm stopping you right there.

That has nothing to do with my theory or point at all.

Zero.
 
EarlyMon said:
This one says Qualcomm 400, this one says Qualcomm 800. Ok, for whatever reason, I know why this one costs more, it's got moar Qualcomms."

I'd be shocked if less than 30% didn't do that.
Click to expand...

So I get a call the other day from my father, well into his 60's. Grew up on the farm, never been much of a technology let alone computer guy, still doesn't text to this day. He was wanting to buy a laptop and HE was giving ME a schooling on how this 2.0 GHz might not cut it because he spotted a 2.4 GHz, 4GB ram, 500 GB HDD on sale at Tiger Direct.

His question to me...this floored the hell out of me...you ever used Tiger Direct? Are they reputable? :D

He was already there in the way of specs. And it was indeed the numbers game at play.

At the end of all that, he was just looking for a +1 on a website's validity as a stand up company. THAT is where his generation came from. Lowest price may or may not yield the best results with all things considered.

One of those moments where I just paused and said huh.
 
As for Letterman, he had a video showing people the old iPhone, telling them that it was the new one, and people made idiots of themselves.

And that's probably my real complaint whenever I hear someone say "general public" or "average consumer" - it's usually a thin mask meaning - dumbass idiot.

And I disagree.
 
iowabowtech said:
So I get a call the other day from my father, well into his 60's. Grew up on the farm, never been much of a technology let alone computer guy, still doesn't text to this day. He was wanting to buy a laptop and HE was giving ME a schooling on how this 2.0 GHz might not cut it because he spotted a 2.4 GHz, 4GB ram, 500 GB HDD on sale at Tiger Direct.

His question to me...this floored the hell out of me...you ever used Tiger Direct? Are they reputable? :D

He was already there in the way of specs. And it was indeed the numbers game at play.

At the end of all that, he was just looking for a +1 on a website's validity as a stand up company. THAT is where his generation came from. Lowest price may or may not yield the best results with all things considered.

One of those moments where I just paused and said huh.
Click to expand...

And that's the average consumer with the disposable income and predilection to buy electronics, right there.

My case in spades.
 
4ybu4ete.jpg

S805 is using 2k display in this benchmark which performs similar to S801 with FHD display
yvequ9ed.jpg

and this actually shows the performance with all running on 1080p off screen.
 
EarlyMon said:
And that's the average consumer with the disposable income and predilection to buy electronics, right there.

My case in spades.
Click to expand...

I really don't know if I'm comprehending your point, EM.

Just to go back to my original debate, which was based on the statement that 90% of consumers would be more concerned about SoC over resolution.

My main point was that I don't see a consumer being more concerned about the SoC over Resolution because the general consumer would typically go into a store and see a screen and that would already draw them in.

I'd love to get quantitative proof that 9/10 consumers would pick up a phone and choose a SoC on a phone over a higher resolution phone.

Another example I thought of is Beats audio. Anybody who knows audio, knows that beats are extremely overpriced, for the quality of product. Does that mean that the general consumer would be swayed toward a cheaper pair of headphones, just be ause someone explains why some less expensive headphones have better audio tech? Marketing and research already shows that people continue buying beats, even though it's not necessarily the best audio tech. What then, makes them so popular? Marketing to the general consumer. And, the fact that Apple bought them, makes my point even stronger.

Steve Jobs was a genius because he was able tp combine great marketing with a very good product. I'd challenge, anyone to take a poll of general consumers to tell who they think created Siri and I would put money on majority saying Apple. Of course, those who are informed will know that Siri was an already existing technology that Apple purchased and marketed as their own.
 
iowabowtech said:
Personally, I think that will prove to be an error in judgement. I dare say 90% or more of potential buyers are more concerned about the SoC than the resolution as evidenced by this thread and comments on the blog articles.
Click to expand...

To be fair to myself tho Drex, when I was using the 90% number, in that context I was talking about the more hardcore faction (bolded above for emphasis). I'm a believer in people doing their homework when it comes time to pony up $$ as I stated but placing all the pre-release stuff under a microscope...that's what we do. And that's who I was referring to there. :)

So I'm not necessarily saying that 9/10 consumers (post release) will choose SoC vs higher resolution. But I do think that number will be significant. Not only based on SoC, but other factors as well.
 
drexappeal said:
I really don't know if I'm comprehending your point, EM.

Just to go back to my original debate, which was based on the statement that 90% of consumers would be more concerned about SoC over resolution.

My main point was that I don't see a consumer being more concerned about the SoC over Resolution because the general consumer would typically go into a store and see a screen and that would already draw them in.
Click to expand...

You have before you two phones with what appear to be the same size screens and they both look good.

They appear to be the same class of device but different brands.

Next to each is a specs card.

Does it get used or ignored in the purchase decision?
 
It sure looks like Samsung will drop an 805 into the S5 Prime. Does LG have any history of upgrading a processor as it becomes available? LG will be absolutely nuts if Samsung has the 805 and they don't.
 
jimbo1mcm said:
It sure looks like Samsung will drop an 805 into the S5 Prime. Does LG have any history of upgrading a processor as it becomes available? LG will be absolutely nuts if Samsung has the 805 and they don't.
Click to expand...
This is just what I'm afraid of: 2Q launches of "flagship" phones and 3Q launches of "prime" smartphones. I really hope LG doesn't join the silliness.
 
jimbo1mcm said:
It sure looks like Samsung will drop an 805 into the S5 Prime. Does LG have any history of upgrading a processor as it becomes available? LG will be absolutely nuts if Samsung has the 805 and they don't.
Click to expand...
Anything is possible in our crazy world.

LG might release G3 w/801 and in a few months come out w/something like G3 Pro, featuring 805 for the same or lower price.

I personally don't care.

EarlyMon said:
Battery life, carry-ability, the camera, and SD card storage - far more important to me than the SoC at the end of the 32-bit road in any case.
Click to expand...

That.
 
Early, no free lunch for sure, but check this out:
Anand Tech said:
Qualcomm claims a 20% reduction in power consumption compared to Adreno 330 (Snapdragon 800) when running the T-Rex HD test from GFXBench at 1080p (onscreen).
Click to expand...
Qualcomm's own data shows a reduction in power consumption for Snapdragon 805 vs. 800, but once again we'll have to wait for shipping devices to really understand the impact of the SoC on battery life.
Click to expand...
Remarkable, given the same 28nm fab. Fairy dust for sure.

This is from that anandtech.com article you linked above, so I'm sure you've read it already. Would have been nice for this monster to have been pushing all those extra pixels.

Now we wait patently for those snacks Steven is brining the announcement and some good hard reviews.
 
The stage is already set for LG to release it and surprise us. If I'm not mistaken the galaxy s5 was about to come with a 800 but the last minute they decided to go with 801, maybe I'm still hoping that by the time of mass production LG would be using 805 since I heard it uses about same moden or peripherals like 801.

And remember the previous leak of antutu benchmark with 1080 and 2k screen , they surely were testing the performance and effectiveness of the 801 as supposed to 805 for high resolution and whatnot. I only hope...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom