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

Galaxy S already outdated, Q4 here come dual core

The picture clearly says dual processor phone. not dual core processor. There's a difference. I would assume by dual processor they mean something similar to the G2 set up with the MSM7230 CPU and Adreno 205 GPU.

Currently qualcomm does not support 1Ghz dual core processors.
 
Arcadia said:
The picture clearly says dual processor phone. not dual core processor. There's a difference. I would assume by dual processor they mean something similar to the G2 set up with the MSM7230 CPU and Adreno 205 GPU.

Currently qualcomm does not support 1Ghz dual core processors.
Click to expand...

Well not to get nit picky, but if the phone is dual processor, each processor has it's own core, which would mean the phone has dual cores. So technically the title is correct. Unless your argument is, that the second processor doesn't contain a core, its an empty shell.:eek:

So again, this phone is dual processor, and dual core because each processor has a core, making the phone dual core. Now the bigger question is, if the phone infact has two seperate processors, and two seperate cores located on two seperate chips, what is each processor responsible for? Is one processor a main processor? Is the second processor a piggy back that picks up small tasks? That is the main question.

The dual core wording is correct. Again, unless you want to argue the second processor doesn't contain a core:rolleyes:


PS...did you pick up on the second processor vs second core wording after you read everyones comments on that link? HEHE
 
SamsungVibrant said:
Well not to get nit picky, but if the phone is dual processor, each processor has it's own core, which would mean the phone has dual cores. So technically the title is correct. Unless your argument is, that the second processor doesn't contain a core, its an empty shell.:eek:

So again, this phone is dual processor, and dual core because each processor has a core, making the phone dual core. Now the bigger question is, if the phone infact has two seperate processors, and two seperate cores located on two seperate chips, what is each processor responsible for? Is one processor a main processor? Is the second processor a piggy back that picks up small tasks? That is the main question.

The dual core wording is correct. Again, unless you want to argue the second processor doesn't contain a core:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Technically, "dual processor" is two independent processors (not attached), and while each processor has a core, it is not "dual core". "Dual core" means a single processor (could be two attatched processors, too) with two cores. Your logic is sound, but that's not how the industry labels the technology, and the terms are not interchangable when describing either one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor

Qualcomm made a statement on Friday saying that their 1.2GHz dual core processor would be available for phone manufacturers to use most likely in Q4, meaning that you really won't see one in the consumer's hands until at least Q1 of 2011. The 1.5GHz dual core proc will be available from Qualcomm in Q3 - Q4 of 2011, meaning you won't see it in the wild until most likely Q1 2012. These are estimated dates.
 
incorrect sir! dual core would mean that one processor has two cores.

dual processors does not = dual core my I7 processor has 4 cores, so i say its a quad core processor. now if i had 4 processors in my computer it would be a quad processor computer.
 
howetechnical said:
Technically, "dual processor" is two processors, and while each processor has a core, it is not "dual core". "Dual core" means a single processor with two cores. Your logic is sound, but that's not how the industry labels the technology.

Multi-core processor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qualcomm made a statement on Friday saying that their 1.2GHz dual core processor would be available for phone manufacturers to use most likely in Q4, meaning that you really won't see one in the consumer's hands until at least Q1 of 2011. The 1.5GHz dual core proc will be available from Qualcomm in Q3 - Q4 of 2011, meaning you won't see it in the wild until most likely Q1 2012.
Click to expand...

fine you win

Anyways, I don't care. Dual core dual processor, whatever, lets just find out what tasks each processor is responsible for!
 
Fine fine fine, you guys win, lets call it dual processor. Now that we have that out of the way. Lets find out what each processor is responsible for!
 
SamsungVibrant said:
Remember in the 90s, people had pentium motherboards that supported multiple processors, you would pop in 2 pentium 586 chips onto 1 motherboard. People did refer to this as both dual processor and dual core. However, yes, today most people refer to dual core, as multiple cores on 1 chip. However, saying a phone is dual core, is technically not incorrect. If the phone has more than 1 processor, then the phone is dual core, although the chip might not be.

Anyways, I don't care. Dual core dual processor, whatever, lets just find out what tasks each processor is responsible for!
Click to expand...

I do remember that, I used to take care of a few dual processor Xeon servers back then. The mobo, as you said, had two slots, and therefore could handle to seperate and independent processors. The terminology hasn't been interchangable in over 8 years though :)

But you're right, let's see how these puppies allocate processes and what each one is really used for.

Ghost said:
incorrect sir! dual core would mean that one processor has two cores.

dual processors does not = dual core my I7 processor has 4 cores, so i say its a quad core processor. now if i had 4 processors in my computer it would be a quad processor computer.
Click to expand...

I swear you're just following me around the Vibrant forums repeating what I say...:D
 
howetechnical said:
Technically, "dual processor" is two independent processors (not attached), and while each processor has a core, it is not "dual core". "Dual core" means a single processor (could be two attatched processors, too) with two cores. Your logic is sound, but that's not how the industry labels the technology, and the terms are not interchangable when describing either one.

Multi-core processor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qualcomm made a statement on Friday saying that their 1.2GHz dual core processor would be available for phone manufacturers to use most likely in Q4, meaning that you really won't see one in the consumer's hands until at least Q1 of 2011. The 1.5GHz dual core proc will be available from Qualcomm in Q3 - Q4 of 2011, meaning you won't see it in the wild until most likely Q1 2012. These are estimated dates.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Before the Samsung Vibrant, all android phones were using a single processor set up. Therefore, the CPU & GPU processes were done on a single chip.

Now we have a dual processor phone with the Vibrant, meaning separate chips for the CPU & GPU. Makes the phone perform a whole lot faster on games, videos etc. The G2 is using a similar set up with MSM7230 and Adreno 205. Different chips for the CPU and GPU. The Nexus One for example had a combined CPU/GPU on one chip. This is why they say the G2 will be a lot faster than the Nexus One.

Dual processor is not the same thing as dual core processor.

Edit: Sorry howetechnical already had it covered lol. It would be nice if this thing featured a true dual core processor. Qualcomm does not make dual core 1Ghz chips though.
 
howetechnical said:
I do remember that, I used to take care of a few dual processor Xeon servers back then. The mobo, as you said, had two slots, and therefore could handle to seperate and independent processors. The terminology hasn't been interchangable in over 8 years though :)

But you're right, let's see how these puppies allocate processes and what each one is really used for.



I swear you're just following me around the Vibrant forums repeating what I say...:D
Click to expand...

Okay I agree lets call it dual processor. Now someone find out what each processor is responsible for.

Imagine this...what if it's nothing more than a cpu and gpu. Then they call this dual processor. lol wouldn't that suck.... hahaha

That would be funny, kind of like back in the 80s, with the 386 chips that didn't have built in FPU, you had to purchase a seperate FPU and pop it into a seperate socket. lol
 
Interesting, the inexorable march of technology continues. While I love to see progress and will continue to do so, this is no threat to me or my ego. There will always be a new processor coming down the tech highway, with more speed, more hyperthreading capacity, more cores and what have you.

I have yet to find an app that doesn't perform wickedly fast on my Vibrant. I'm sure that once apps become optimized for dual processors/multi core processors there will be more apps that will challenge this poor, little, anemic, obsolete, Hummingbird... :rolleyes:

Hey if I want to do serious number crunching, I've got a multi core laptop or a fast desktop. For what I do with my mobile device I'm blown away by the power of the Vibrant. I'm sure in a couple years I might want to upgrade but the question is will I need to upgrade to do what I want to do on the go? I'll cross that bridge when I find something that challenges the Vibrant's performance.

I guess if you want bragging rights and feel the need or desire to have the bleeding edge, latest and greatest, you can get excited and keep up with the Joneses. Just know that there is a never ending carousel of obsolescence and that phone manufacturers will LOVE YOU and your $$$.
 
SamsungVibrant said:
Okay I agree lets call it dual processor. Now someone find out what each processor is responsible for.

Imagine this...what if it's nothing more than a cpu and gpu. Then they call this dual processor. lol wouldn't that suck.... hahaha

That would be funny, kind of like back in the 80s, with the 386 chips that didn't have built in FPU, you had to purchase a seperate FPU and pop it into a seperate socket. lol
Click to expand...
I'm 95% sure T-Mobile is talking about the seperate CPU/GPU combo, if not, they need to word their advertisements better.

On a serious tip. I can not fathom why they would put a dual core top of the line processor into their teenage/soccer mom oriented MyTouch lineup, but not their professional stock android G2 phone. I don't understand how they only gave the G2 an 800Mhz processor. Sure it will perform fine, but can you imagine how many more customers they would rack in with a 1.2Ghz G2? People are refusing to buy this phone because of the processor speed.
 
Arcadia said:
I'm 95% sure T-Mobile is talking about the seperate CPU/GPU combo, if not, they need to word their advertisements better.

On a serious tip. I can not fathom why they would put a dual core top of the line processor into their teenage/soccer mom oriented MyTouch lineup, but not their professional stock android G2 phone. I don't understand how they only gave the G2 an 800Mhz processor. Sure it will perform fine, but can you imagine how many more customers they would rack in with a 1.2Ghz G2? People are refusing to buy this phone because of the processor speed.
Click to expand...

It is important to remember that MHZ don't matter. An 800Mhz phone can outperform a 1ghz processor.

This was most evident when the controversy between 486 and pentium 586 occured years ago.

For those who are too young to remember. People always thought "mhz" was the main determining factor of performance. Case in point... the 486 DX2 was available in 66 mhz. Then came pentium at 66 mhz, of course the penium was faster. The confusion was, what about the 486 dx4 running at 100 mhz. Everyone who falsely thought mhz was the only determing factor, assumed the 486 dx4 running at 100mhz would be faster than the pentium running at 66mhz. FALSE. The pentium running at 66mhz was actually faster than the 486 dx4 running at 100mhz. 34 mhz slower, but the pentium was faster! So my point is, mhz don't matter. The 800mhz G2 may outperform 1ghz phones.
 
Try telling that to the soccer mom who wants to buy her college son a new phone but likes the Droid 2 because the commercials are cool.

Most people don't know any better.
 
SamsungVibrant said:
It is important to remember that MHZ don't matter. An 800Mhz phone can outperform a 1ghz processor.

This was most evident when the controversy between 486 and pentium 586 occured years ago.

For those who are too young to remember. People always thought "mhz" was the main determining factor of performance. Case in point... the 486 DX2 was available in 66 mhz. Then came pentium at 66 mhz, of course the penium was faster. The confusion was, what about the 486 dx4 running at 100 mhz. Everyone who falsely thought mhz was the only determing factor, assumed the 486 dx4 running at 100mhz would be faster than the pentium running at 66mhz. FALSE. The pentium running at 66mhz was actually faster than the 486 dx4 running at 100mhz. 34 mhz slower, but the pentium was faster! So my point is, mhz don't matter. The 800mhz G2 may outperform 1ghz phones.
Click to expand...

The 800MHz G2 -WILL- outperform 1GHz phones, at least the ones out right now. Reason is, the processing "highways" (not sure if they're calling it cache on mobile proc's, probably though) are four times that of the current 1GHz snapdragon. Even though you can't transfer information as fast as the 1GHz (only slightly slower, mind you), you can transfer four times as much. I would rather have four carts of hay delivered to me in 10 minutes than 1.5 carts of hay delivered in 9 minutes.
 
howetechnical said:
The 800MHz G2 -WILL- outperform 1GHz phones, at least the ones out right now. Reason is, the processing "highways" (not sure if they're calling it cache on mobile proc's, probably though) are four times that of the current 1GHz snapdragon. Even though you can't transfer information as fast as the 1GHz (only slightly slower, mind you), you can transfer four times as much. I would rather have four carts of hay delivered to me in 10 minutes than 2 carts of hay delivered in 9 minutes.
Click to expand...

A preliminary review I believe showed that the Hummingbird was still faster than the 800mhz processor in the G2. I don't know where I read that benchmark review though. hmmm I'll try to find it.
 
SamsungVibrant said:
Ya that would be funny if they just meant seperate cpu/gpu. Also it wasn't an advertisement, I think it was internal documents.
Click to expand...

FYI, not sure if it was noticed in an earlier post, but the Vibrant -is- a dual processor CPU/GPU device. Two proc's, one for CPU, one for GPU. That's why games and videos render faster for us.
 
SamsungVibrant said:
A preliminary review I believe showed that the Hummingbird was still faster than the 800mhz processor in the G2. I don't know where I read that benchmark review though. hmmm I'll try to find it.
Click to expand...

Please do share if you can find. I first heard about the increased cache of the 800GHz in the G2 from the androidcentral.com podcast.

FYI: Faster, yes. It would be faster, but it doesn't transfer as much information at a time. What the user will notice is how quickly their apps open, the device operates, stuff like that. If 400kb of information can transfer in .5 seconds using all four pathways of the 800GHz proc (100kb each), that will appear faster than having single loads of 100kb transfer in .3 seconds each load.
 
howetechnical said:
Please do share if you can find. I first heard about the increased cache of the 800GHz in the G2 from the androidcentral.com podcast.

FYI: Faster, yes. It would be faster, but it doesn't transfer as much information at a time. What the user will notice is how quickly their apps open, the device operates, stuff like that. If 400kb of information can transfer in .5 seconds using all four pathways of the 800GHz proc (100kb each), that will appear faster than having single loads of 100kb transfer in .3 seconds each load.
Click to expand...

ohhhh, you know what I meant by faster:mad:
 
SamsungVibrant said:
A preliminary review I believe showed that the Hummingbird was still faster than the 800mhz processor in the G2. I don't know where I read that benchmark review though. hmmm I'll try to find it.
Click to expand...
FYI, the Hummingbird uses the "dual-processor" format the G2 uses. Only differences are that the Hummingbird CPU and PowerVR350 GPU are substantially more powerful than MSM7230 and Adreno205 respectively. They say the newer PowerVR400 chip going into Samsung's newer devices have "console-like" power.
 
Arcadia said:
FYI, the Hummingbird uses the "dual-processor" format the G2 uses. Only differences are that the Hummingbird CPU and PowerVR350 GPU are substantially more powerful than MSM7230 and Adreno205 respectively. They say the newer PowerVR400 chip going into Samsung's newer devices have "console-like" power.
Click to expand...

FYI the galaxy s uses the powervr Sgx540... Not powervr350. Also what's the fyi about...did i say the hummingbird was slower?
:rolleyes:

Also whats the PowerVR400? I can't find any information on a PowerVR400?
 
SamsungVibrant said:
FYI the galaxy s uses the powervr Sgx540... Not powervr350. Also what's the fyi about...did i say the hummingbird was slower?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I never did get the names down of the Samsung chips. Oh well, close enough.

No you did not. But for some reason people underestimate the Hummingbird chip, like it's a 1st gen snapdragon clone. Somehow people think the G2's dual processor design is new business, even though the Hummingbird had the same design first, and with more powerful hardware. I don't quite understand how people think the G2 will score better CPU benchmarks. :confused:

Similar with the MyTouch Slide, the G2 may score better GPU benchmarks than the Galaxy S phones. Not because the GPU is any better, which it isn't, but because the screens are smaller with a "not as high end" technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom