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

Tegra 3 Thoughts...

ouch1976

ouch1976

Android Enthusiast
In my opinion, the Tegra 2 didn't live up to expectations, yet it was found in virtually every Android tablet of 2011. Now with MWC coming up, it appears that Tegra 3 has some really nice design wins, especially in phones. But, the recent performance tests have been showing the Tegra 3 being bested by dual core processors. Also, other chip companies will release their own quad core chips in the next few months.

So, I wonder if nVidia will be able to prove their mettle, or just be brushed aside by TI, Samsung, and Qualcomm? What do you think? Lastly, does the chip inside your phone really effect your purchase decision?
 
It affects my buying decision somewhat.

The truth is that at any given time, comparing the top processors is really like comparing BMW, Mercedes and Audi.

But if you follow the popular press, it's a race between a favored Lamborghini and a bunch of Ford Pintos, according to their so-called benchmarks.

The Tegra 2 was the first widely available dual core. Stands to reason that subsequent offerings had advantages over it. Fact is, processor releases will probably be a game of endless leapfrog.

Most people assume that graphics benchmarks are important. OK, they are important to some people like gamers. Even then, the benchmarks might not tell the story for you because they often test graphics not connected to a display - so end use on a real device may not translate. And then comes the fact that graphics benchmarks don't indicate that a processor that does poorer on 3D games might be the top dog when it comes to playing video.

And none of the benchmarks are profiling how a processor might do on battery consumption taking real world everyday use into account.

Finally, you hit performance from cpu architectures. And so far, a dual core using the new A15 architecture may benchmark better than a quad of A9s. But how fast do you want to go, how fast do you need to go, and which one is more energy efficient?

I don't have the answers, but I know that they are not asking those questions - the right ones, in my opinion.

Here's what I think that we do know - multiple cores improve performance and battery life. And - the Android OS is growing to prefer more horsepower while phones are increasing power requirements with larger displays and 4G radios.

And I think that this next year is going to bring us some exciting processor choices! :)
 
I agree with everything you say....except the fact that the processor having any impact on my buying decision...the truth is, I'm not a hardcore gamer nor power-user, so I doubt I need dual cores, let alone quad cores...while I love the Rezound, I would be totally content going back to my Droid X...and I have no clue what chip is in either one...
 
I'm going to wait for the real-world reviews of Tegra 3 before I ever consider getting one. I have a Tegra 2 tablet and it does alright on games, but not as good as I would like it. Benchmarks are just numbers. Just like horsepower. More HP doesn't always mean a faster car. You have to factor in weight, tires, driver, etc. Same with computers. You could put the best Snapdragon or Exynos processor in the a motherboard that can't handle it and then benchmarks mean nothing.
 
I'm very impressived with my Transformer Prime, everything runs extremely well as you would expect, best benchmarks I''ve run show clear advantage for the Prime over my Galaxy S2.

The only benchmark which puzzles me a little is the linpack single threaded test, it scores about the same as Exynos even though the Cortex A9 in Tegra 3 is clocked at 1.6GHz (Performance mode) vs 1.2GHz in Exynos. Exynos overclocked to 1.6GHz just destorys Tegra 3 in the single threaded test.

GPU performance is inbetween ARM's Mali 400 and PowerVR SGX543MP2, it's good but not as good as you would expect from nvidia.
 
Shocky said:
I'm very impressived with my Transformer Prime, everything runs extremely well as you would expect, best benchmarks I''ve run show clear advantage for the Prime over my Galaxy S2.

The only benchmark which puzzles me a little is the linpack single threaded test, it scores about the same as Exynos even though the Cortex A9 in Tegra 3 is clocked at 1.6GHz (Performance mode) vs 1.2GHz in Exynos. Exynos overclocked to 1.6GHz just destorys Tegra 3 in the single threaded test.

GPU performance is inbetween ARM's Mali 400 and PowerVR SGX543MP2, it's good but not as good as you would expect from nvidia.
Click to expand...

I think its the processor architecture itself that makes the difference between Tegra 3 and the Exynos. The Exynos is supposed to have smaller distances etc. Anyway, Samsung already showed of the quad core Exynos, so I guess it would be a beast.
 
Personally, the chip inside is actually an important point of consideration for me. I use my phone to watch movies on the go, so I need to make sure that my phone is able to play 1080p h.264 high profile (at least level 4.1) videos smoothly. That was what puzzled me for a while when most manufacturers chose to go with Tegra 2 for their tablets (Tegra 2 cannot even play 720p videos, what is the point of having a tablet if you cannot watch movies on it?)
Anyway, Tegra 3 is everything Tegra 2 should have been. If you have ever used Tegra 3 in ASUS Transformer Prime with ICS, you will see that it is the best Android experience on any tablet. In terms of video playback, Tegra 3 is the only SOC that can play a 40Mbps h.264 high profile level 5.1 video without any lag at the moment. I would be very happy to see how Qualcomm and Samsung can match Tegra 3's video playback performance (probably TI as well, but I don't have much hope because I don't know of any current TI-powered smartphones that can play 1080p high profile videos).
 
huy_lonewolf said:
Personally, the chip inside is actually an important point of consideration for me. I use my phone to watch movies on the go, so I need to make sure that my phone is able to play 1080p h.264 high profile (at least level 4.1) videos smoothly. That was what puzzled me for a while when most manufacturers chose to go with Tegra 2 for their tablets (Tegra 2 cannot even play 720p videos, what is the point of having a tablet if you cannot watch movies on it?)
Anyway, Tegra 3 is everything Tegra 2 should have been. If you have ever used Tegra 3 in ASUS Transformer Prime with ICS, you will see that it is the best Android experience on any tablet. In terms of video playback, Tegra 3 is the only SOC that can play a 40Mbps h.264 high profile level 5.1 video without any lag at the moment. I would be very happy to see how Qualcomm and Samsung can match Tegra 3's video playback performance (probably TI as well, but I don't have much hope because I don't know of any current TI-powered smartphones that can play 1080p high profile videos).
Click to expand...

International Galaxy S2, running Exynos chipset plays 1080p H.264 at 5.1 channel. Of course performance may change when faced with a bigger screen, but so far GSMArena attests to the smoothness on a video with that profile. Furthermore, the Samsung Galaxy Tab series with Tegra 2 CAN play 1080p videos as well.

I believe the Skyrocket is running a TI chip? So someone with that may chime in for the TI part.
 
chanchan05 said:
International Galaxy S2, running Exynos chipset plays 1080p H.264 at 5.1 channel. Of course performance may change when faced with a bigger screen, but so far GSMArena attests to the smoothness on a video with that profile. Furthermore, the Samsung Galaxy Tab series with Tegra 2 CAN play 1080p videos as well.

I believe the Skyrocket is running a TI chip? So someone with that may chime in for the TI part.
Click to expand...

Believe me when I say that I am sure of what I post, because I have personally tested all of those devices, but I may not make myself clear enough:
First, the international galaxy S2 with Exynos can indeed play 1080p h.264 high profile lv 5.1 videos (please be clear that I am not talking about audio channel, 5.1 is the high profile level of h.264 codec), but it is limited by the bit rate of the videos. As I have mentioned, for videos with bit rate as high as 40 Mbps, the only device capable of playing those is the ASUS Transformer Prime. The Galaxy S2 simply cannot manage 40 Mbps, so is my HTC Sensation.
Second, not all 1080p videos are the same. To determine which videos have higher quality, you should look at the codec and bit rate inside. When I say Tegra 2 cannot play any 720p videos, I am referring to 720p h.264 high profile level 4.1 in mkv format, probably the standard for HD videos (at least most of my high definition videos are like that). Anything around or higher than level 4.1, Tegra 2 simply fails. This is actually quite easy to verify, if you have any Tegra 2 device, please go to youtube desktop site and load a 720p or 1080p video, you can see how laggy it can get. That should demonstrate the limitation of Tegra 2 in playing videos.
For TI-based devices, the only one I have tested is the Motorola Droid Razr, and it also fails miserably at youtube HD 1080p. I don't have the Galaxy Nexus to test the OMAP 4460, so I will be glad if someone call fill me in on it.
By the way, the Skyrocket uses Qualcomm Snapdragon S3, not TI OMAP 4.
 
Ok, wasn't really sure about the Skyrocket anyway, but I still remember that one of the SGS2 devices in the US have a TI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom