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

Do not doubt

Dual-channel LPDDR2 is a step in the right direction for phones getting faster and faster. It's like going to dual or quad-core.
Click to expand...
Except adding a dual or quad core processor has a significant impact on performance (and battery) as long as you have properly coded applications. Dual channel RAM, on the other hand, will only net you roughly 10-20% increase in performance for RAM limited cases (using data from dual channel RAM on desktops). In some cases, dual channel can be slower than single channel because it has higher timings. It remains to be seen if dual channel will even have an impact on a smartphone; loading massive photos into RAM for editing on a desktop takes a lot more power than loading part of a 10MB application into RAM on a smartphone. At the end of the day, we are left throwing around pointless facts. :)
 
drdoom said:
Except adding a dual or quad core processor has a significant impact on performance (and battery) as long as you have properly coded applications.
Click to expand...

Not every app can take advantage of multiple cores, no matter how well it's coded. People are seeing minimal advantage to a 2nd core right now, and having quad-core will produce even more diminishing benefits. For the most part having more cores means enabling more apps or system threads to run at the same time, rather than speeding up any one app.

drdoom said:
Dual channel RAM, on the other hand, will only net you roughly 10-20% increase in performance for RAM limited cases (using data from dual channel RAM on desktops).
Click to expand...

That sounds plausible. I think AMD's 6-core desktop chips are currently plenty well fed from only 2-channel RAM.

drdoom said:
In some cases, dual channel can be slower than single channel because it has higher timings.
Click to expand...

I don't think dual-channel RAM is ever slower than comparable single-channel. You're probably remembering how the first desktop DDR2 had horrible latencies and could perform worse than DDR.

drdoom said:
It remains to be seen if dual channel will even have an impact on a smartphone; loading massive photos into RAM for editing on a desktop takes a lot more power than loading part of a 10MB application into RAM on a smartphone.
Click to expand...

RAM speed should have minimal effect on the speed of loading data from flash or disk, which are the much slower limiting factors.

drdoom said:
At the end of the day, we are left throwing around pointless facts. :)
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
droidfan1 said:
Btw Yoda, finally you are trusted...
Click to expand...

Yoda will have to post pics with his username written on paper next to them to verify they're totally legit ;)

Specifically these pictures, to be exact:
Side view with mm ruler next to it
Rear view
Battery with mAh clearly visible
Video output sample (video = super bonus!)

Hehehe, I can only dream until release day :o
 
drdoom said:
Except adding a dual or quad core processor has a significant impact on performance (and battery) as long as you have properly coded applications. Dual channel RAM, on the other hand, will only net you roughly 10-20% increase in performance for RAM limited cases (using data from dual channel RAM on desktops). In some cases, dual channel can be slower than single channel because it has higher timings. It remains to be seen if dual channel will even have an impact on a smartphone; loading massive photos into RAM for editing on a desktop takes a lot more power than loading part of a 10MB application into RAM on a smartphone. At the end of the day, we are left throwing around pointless facts. :)
Click to expand...

I said "like" getting quad or dual. In no way does dual-channel bring such performance increases, I'm just saying it's an upgrade. :cool:

But you're right about a lot of that. Everything BlueBiker says.
 
Vehtemas said:
So, how is that for you?
Click to expand...

Too bad none of those links actually offers hard proof other than whats been said by all the news sites, like a shot of the settings screen or the task manager running. The links to the FCC specs would have been better since that is actually the final hardware and besides, with all the other phones coming out now, Moto would be shooting themselves in the foot if it didn't have 1GB.
 
Although GSM is mentioned in the numerous specs, none of the advertising leaks mention it. :( Could be like the vzw iphone4 where it has the Qualcomm combo chip with CDMA/GSM but not usable.
 
William T Riker said:
Too bad none of those links actually offers hard proof other than whats been said by all the news sites, like a shot of the settings screen or the task manager running. The links to the FCC specs would have been better since that is actually the final hardware and besides, with all the other phones coming out now, Moto would be shooting themselves in the foot if it didn't have 1GB.
Click to expand...

Oh, Yooooodaaaaaa? :p
 
William T Riker said:
Too bad none of those links actually offers hard proof other than whats been said by all the news sites, like a shot of the settings screen or the task manager running. The links to the FCC specs would have been better since that is actually the final hardware and besides, with all the other phones coming out now, Moto would be shooting themselves in the foot if it didn't have 1GB.
Click to expand...

Isn't somebody supposed to chime in and remind us it has DDR2 and therefore doesn't matter whether it's 1GB or not? <ducks>

Anyhoo, like everybody else I'm certain it will indeed have 1GB and you can make your purchase plans accordingly. Pretty sure it's also advertised as having webtop, which would be particularly uncompelling w/less RAM.

[They probly fired the guy responsible for the initial Bionic delay screwup, and they'd hafta fire 'em all over again if the 2nd edition still only had 512MB.]
 
The delay was mostly (but not only) due to the development of the LE chip in house. You don't develop a chip overnight. Nor even over a few weeks.
 
No so they say about it - they brought it out at a conference (CES?) earlier this year and actually asked participants what they liked and did not like about it and then went back to the drawing board.
 
tehsusenoh said:
It wasn't delayed, it was taken back for more upgrades, so they say.
Click to expand...

My understanding, from reading the unverified leaks, is that the current Bionic isn't an upgrade of the original Bionic. The original Bionic (code named Etna) was simply scrapped due to some combination of overheating, flaky LTE, and probably Motorola's growing awareness that 512MB just wouldn't cut it in an image phone. So they brought forward another phone (code named Targa) that they had in development, and this is what's about to be released as Bionic.
 
That's entirely possible - it would explain why we get an in-house developed LTE chip - like I said,those things aren't developed overnight.
 
BlueBiker said:
My understanding, from reading the unverified leaks, is that the current Bionic isn't an upgrade of the original Bionic. The original Bionic (code named Etna) was simply scrapped due to some combination of overheating, flaky LTE, and probably Motorola's growing awareness that 512MB just wouldn't cut it in an image phone. So they brought forward another phone (code named Targa) that they had in development, and this is what's about to be released as Bionic.
Click to expand...

That's it. They took back the name though! :p
 
Well, that also makes sense - the Bionic was never officially released, so the trademark was still theirs to use, and there was no confusion on it b/c no consumers had ever handled a Bionic before other than sample/ pre-release units at CES.
 
I'm glad they did it this way. I know some hate the name Bionic, but I think Droid Bionic fits...and it's a cool name. But not near as important as specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom