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

Perhaps new and "solid" info on Bionic

BlueBiker said:
For the record, I would take a single 1.5GHz over a dual 1.0GHz any day of the week (assuming otherwise comparable CPU architectures).
Click to expand...

well, me too. but it doesn't seem like you'd have to.

Argh. Moto really dropped the ball waiting so long. I don't think the Bionic will be the only 4G dual-core phone out in September, despite what the CEO said.

Moto might be toast, if the Vigor is all it's cracked up to be and releases at roughly the same time.
 
As a first time smartphone owner of the HTC Thunderbolt, I'd be very reluctant to go for Vigor. No support, terrible battery life. Honestly, it's like everyone wants to give HTC a pass. I'm gonna lay back and see user feedback on Bionic and GSII. I don't trust HTC. I really hope MOTO brings a winner.
 
Single core *over* dual core? Really?

So, you'd rather have a single core Core i7 clocked at 4 GHz than a dual core Core i7 clocked at 3 GHz. Wow. OK.

I really need to hear the rationale behind that statement. I'm making fun of you or trinyg to be an ass - I'm really and truly shocked and I want to hear the reasoning, because it may be something I'm not even considering that might open my eyes....
 
I think the processor in HTC Vigor is probably dual core snapdragon 8660 clocked at 1.5Ghz. I recall seeing news that Pantech made such phone in Korea but forgot the name of it. Also there was benchmark of 1.5Ghz snapdragon 8660 done by Qualcomm and reported by Anandtech before. It seems to be faster than Tegra2, OMAP 4430 and comparable to Exynos @1.2Ghz.
 
red66charger said:
As a first time smartphone owner of the HTC Thunderbolt, I'd be very reluctant to go for Vigor. No support, terrible battery life. Honestly, it's like everyone wants to give HTC a pass. I'm gonna lay back and see user feedback on Bionic and GSII. I don't trust HTC. I really hope MOTO brings a winner.
Click to expand...

Not everyone's giving them a pass. I'm not a fan of HTC at all. Bout the only phone I have respect for is the Sensation, and that's not without issues. And I see more HTC phones being returned than I do anything else.
 
johnlgalt said:
Single core *over* dual core? Really?

So, you'd rather have a single core Core i7 clocked at 4 GHz than a dual core Core i7 clocked at 3 GHz. Wow. OK.

I really need to hear the rationale behind that statement. I'm making fun of you or trinyg to be an ass - I'm really and truly shocked and I want to hear the reasoning, because it may be something I'm not even considering that might open my eyes....
Click to expand...

Good questions. A single-core that's 50% faster will run everything 50% faster (except where it's waiting for network or disk/ssd), but additional cores only help when there are enough simultaneous app or operating system threads to keep them busy -- otherwise they just sit there doing nothing useful. You might get an 80% boost from a second core under ideal conditions, but if all you're running is one app at a given time, and that app hasn't been specially written to use multiple cores, then you probably won't notice a benefit.

PC gamers (I'm not one) will often choose a screaming fast dual-core over a moderately fast quad-core if the game can't use more than two cores. Check out the feedback comments for the Core i5-680, which will beat every 4- and even 6-core CPU that Intel makes on Sockets 1156 and 1366 when running single-threaded code.

But yeah, if you're running a demanding app while streaming audio and doing other busy tasks in the background, then the dual-core 1.0 might be a better fit for you than a single 1.5. Also it's been reported that dual-cores actually use less battery power than a single-core.
 
I don't know about going with the Vigor, I have very big misgivings about HTC...

Not to mention, 1.5GHz dual core is going to cause some HEAT, they better have an actual cooling system or a helluva big battery, what with their screw up with the Tbolt...
 
Jgraham49 said:
The pictures in question. Also, the web pages does say it has a 4.3" screen
Click to expand...


Whoever had that phone had enough time to install customizations like minimalist-text and circle battery widget??? :eek:

If you can leak the images, leak MORE!
 
Vehtemas said:
Not 100% accurate, you have to take into consideration the architecture, NM size of the chip, motherboard/RAM configuration and class of SD card.

One can not base the speed off the CPU, especially with laptops and modern phones.
Click to expand...

Those are good points. I mentioned when not waiting on disk/ssd, but it's generally accurate within the same architecture as long as it's not starved for RAM bandwidth.

I think they claimed that Snapdragon at 1.5GHz benchmarked about the same as Exynos at 1.2GHz (which would mean that Snapdragon is a less efficient design), so clock speed comparisons aren't valid across different architectures.
 
BlueBiker said:
Those are good points. I mentioned when not waiting on disk/ssd, but it's generally accurate within the same architecture as long as it's not starved for RAM bandwidth.

I think they claimed that Snapdragon at 1.5GHz benchmarked about the same as Exynos at 1.2GHz (which would mean that Snapdragon is a less efficient design), so clock speed comparisons aren't valid across different architectures.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that dual core snapdragon is still based on cortex A8 architecture while tegra2, omap4, exynos are all A9 based. So snapdragon is less efficient than other dual cores. I don't like HTC sticking with only Qualcomm processors.
 
BlueBiker said:
Good questions. A single-core that's 50% faster will run everything 50% faster (except where it's waiting for network or disk/ssd), but additional cores only help when there are enough simultaneous app or operating system threads to keep them busy -- otherwise they just sit there doing nothing useful. You might get an 80% boost from a second core under ideal conditions, but if all you're running is one app at a given time, and that app hasn't been specially written to use multiple cores, then you probably won't notice a benefit.

PC gamers (I'm not one) will often choose a screaming fast dual-core over a moderately fast quad-core if the game can't use more than two cores. Check out the feedback comments for the Core i5-680, which will beat every 4- and even 6-core CPU that Intel makes on Sockets 1156 and 1366 when running single-threaded code.

But yeah, if you're running a demanding app while streaming audio and doing other busy tasks in the background, then the dual-core 1.0 might be a better fit for you than a single 1.5. Also it's been reported that dual-cores actually use less battery power than a single-core.
Click to expand...

Good points - except I've never seen our phones running a single task on them at any given moment, even after a Factory reset. just having the display on is a task in and of itself, much less any other task, right?

Vehtemas said:
Not 100% accurate, you have to take into consideration the architecture, NM size of the chip, motherboard/RAM configuration and class of SD card.

One can not base the speed off the CPU, especially with laptops and modern phones.
Click to expand...

Also good points.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in real world terms, your phone is either in use or idling. At idle, both CPUs are idle, unless you ahve a lot of taks set to run in the background, even when the phone is 'asleep'. Add to that the fact that our phones sync in the background, and apps out tehre make use of various facets of our phones, like GPS (location awareness), accelerometer, etc. plus doing the usual like monitoring for phone calls, SMS< email, etc. and my own personal guess would be that there is almost never going to be a time when you're truly only running a single task.

In a laboratory, sure, you can compare the CPUs on a task by task basis - but empirically speaking, very few people with phones like these are running only a single task, or, more appropriately, use their phone as a phone only and forego other uses like SMS, email, chat, search, etc.

Even with my DROID being my first smartphone ever, I can tell you this - it was a game changer for me - I now do so many more things with my phone b/c I can, and I cannot run this phone at speeds less than 900 MHz - at 800 MHz I subjectively feel that the phone is slow, at 600 it's intolerable. But, I have a lot going on - FB, Twitter, G+, email (4 accounts), search, Shopping, plus Beautiful widgets, Skype, Kindle, numerous apps for testing phone, benchmarking, and lots of not often used utilities, not to mention I'm rooted and am constantly updating apps, checking for ROM updates, tweaking, etc.

My single core CPU is really killing my usage abililty right now in light of it runing CM7 Nightly (GB based) *and* having well over the 256 MB of apps installed. There is simply no way I'd ever buy a single core mobile phone ever again.
 
johnlgalt said:
Good points - except I've never seen our phones running a single task on them at any given moment, even after a Factory reset. just having the display on is a task in and of itself, much less any other task, right?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, a task takes essentially zero CPU when it's not actively doing something: calculating results, reading or writing data from some storage or communications device, or updating the display (such as with animated widgets or backgrounds).

You could have Excel, Word, Outlook, AIM, Acrobat, Photoshop, Visual Studio, all sorts of apps running on your Windows desktop simultaneously, but if none of them are doing any work, then Task Mgr will show your CPU cores all flat-lining near idle.

johnlgalt said:
Also good points.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in real world terms, your phone is either in use or idling. At idle, both CPUs are idle, unless you ahve a lot of taks set to run in the background, even when the phone is 'asleep'. Add to that the fact that our phones sync in the background, and apps out tehre make use of various facets of our phones, like GPS (location awareness), accelerometer, etc. plus doing the usual like monitoring for phone calls, SMS< email, etc. and my own personal guess would be that there is almost never going to be a time when you're truly only running a single task.

In a laboratory, sure, you can compare the CPUs on a task by task basis - but empirically speaking, very few people with phones like these are running only a single task, or, more appropriately, use their phone as a phone only and forego other uses like SMS, email, chat, search, etc.

Even with my DROID being my first smartphone ever, I can tell you this - it was a game changer for me - I now do so many more things with my phone b/c I can, and I cannot run this phone at speeds less than 900 MHz - at 800 MHz I subjectively feel that the phone is slow, at 600 it's intolerable. But, I have a lot going on - FB, Twitter, G+, email (4 accounts), search, Shopping, plus Beautiful widgets, Skype, Kindle, numerous apps for testing phone, benchmarking, and lots of not often used utilities, not to mention I'm rooted and am constantly updating apps, checking for ROM updates, tweaking, etc.

My single core CPU is really killing my usage abililty right now in light of it runing CM7 Nightly (GB based) *and* having well over the 256 MB of apps installed. There is simply no way I'd ever buy a single core mobile phone ever again.
Click to expand...

You're right that background syncs use CPU time and will take advantage of extra cores -- but only during the times the synchronization is actually happening. It sounds as if you have enough apps running that you really could use a second core, but you already got a huge boost from overclocking by 50%. I'm sure having even 512MB of RAM would give you a lot of breathing room, and all the phones we're looking at have 1GB.

If your four email accounts are non-gmail ones, then you can set up push IMAP using the K-9 Mail app. That way your phone doesn't have to poll all four of those accounts however many times per hour, the phone will get instant notification for every email message received. Gmail accounts are already pushed w/the native gmail app and don't need to do polling.
 
jinwons said:
Now they updated that page with someone's analysis on the screen size from that Bionic vs Charge comparison shot. It looks like surely bigger than 4.3" on Charge.
Click to expand...

Isn't the Charge 4.3 800x480 and the Bionic qHD 960x540?
If so, the Bionic is more "widescreen" and will be a slightly skinnier and taller 4.3 screen than the Charge's screen if I calculated correctly.

I'm just saying that it could still be 4.3 and look taller.
 
jinwons said:
Now they updated that page with someone's analysis on the screen size from that Bionic vs Charge comparison shot. It looks like surely bigger than 4.3" on Charge.
Click to expand...


The analysis seems biased into willing the Bionic into a 4.5" display. The bezel assumption is way too thin and the top assumption is near flush to the "Motorola" at top. The second group of pics contradicts the relative display and bezel dimensions and suggest a device that has a bigger bezel.

Seems VZW may be using the space for telescopic design for LTE heat dissipation and radio antenna arrays. Just my guess, since must be a reason for the wide bezel- IF the second pics at Droid Life are true.

Added: None the less, the bezel assumptions with the drawn pics seem fitted to a 4.5" assumption and not practical.

If these pics are real, the wider bezel offsets the drawn pic assumptions and probably means a 4.3" device. Not to mention the Droid 3 looks good with pentile, but 4.5" may fall into "careful what you wish for". The drawing IMO is off.

http://www.droid-life.com/2011/08/0...urfaces-looking-more-beautiful-by-the-minute/
 
algs26 said:
Isn't the Charge 4.3 800x480 and the Bionic qHD 960x540?
If so, the Bionic is more "widescreen" and will be a slightly skinnier and taller 4.3 screen than the Charge's screen if I calculated correctly.

I'm just saying that it could still be 4.3 and look taller.
Click to expand...

Good catch. 800x480 would correspond to 900x540, so you're right the Bionic's qHD would be almost 7% taller in portrait mode for the same width.
 
Everything is relative in geometry (I tried not to word too lamely). The assumptions would only be correct if both devices have same bezels and same positions for center of display. The appear not to, so the assumptions are probably off.
 
Still prefer the Original design best but i just want the phone to come out so i can
check it out and play around with it.
 
It is 4.3". Unless English Units of measurement have changed, 4.3" is the final spec. Sorry guys.

On a brighter note, my battery on Bionic is already at 12 hours today, and I still have 35% capacity remaining. Full LTE, all radios on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom