-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
The (maybe) "Epic" Motorola X Pre-Release Thread
- Thread starter The_Chief
- Start date
-
- Tags
- motorola moto x
- Status
halon
hakuna matata
Yeah. I wasn't saying Verizon wasnt getting it. I figured everyone would know I was talking about MotoMaker.
Anyways. About November.
http://www.androidauthority.com/moto-x-release-date-at-t-t-mobile-sprint-verizon-253532/
Anyways. About November.
http://www.androidauthority.com/moto-x-release-date-at-t-t-mobile-sprint-verizon-253532/
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the 32GB upgrade was part of the motomaker, but that may have been a product of speculation or misinformation.
MSUgEEk
Android Expert
This! So much this! I still FIRMLY believe that the reason for the constant delays in the Galaxy Nexus launch was to give their newest Droid time to sell.
halon
hakuna matata
I know, that's what I think, but I can't seem to remember which blog regurgitated another blog where I read it.
MSUgEEk
Android Expert
I couldn't take it any more.
Registered, my comment at Forbes -
Now I just need for their stupid profile tool to recognize my avatar so y'all know it's me.
I'm really not sure what the author of that article is thinking. If he's an industry expert that he claims to be, he would shed some light on the computing architecture rather than point fingers at Motorola and say they are misleading people. My experience with electronics design is pretty limited to very basic Atmel and Microchip microprocessor type stuff...but I understand what Moto is doing. Nothing about their presentation was misleading to me. Even the so-called "fake" PCB with 8 cores on it he is saying Moto used to mislead people was pretty obvious to me that it was just a graphical representation of each core...not a physical PCB/Chipset layout.
shalemail
Android Expert
I know, that's what I think, but I can't seem to remember which blog regurgitated another blog where I read it.
Yes that's the case. The 32 GB is only available through Motomaker. If you look at the motomaker demo it clearly shows it. Plus I did read it somewhere that it is indeed part of the customization.
Moto Maker demo
Moto Maker demo - YouTube
AHHHH here - Motorola Moto X vs. HTC One
"The 32 GB edition of the Moto X is also an AT&T exclusive at launch, leaving everyone else with just 16 GB and no microSD card slot."
swantonbomboy
Member
I'm wondering if AT&T promised Moto a huge number of Moto X units sold similar to what they did for Apple to get the initial exclusivity. Wouldn't be a bad thing to give Moto a kick start back into the non-VZW market.
shalemail
Android Expert
Pleasure.
My final comment really provided the salient argument -
FWIW - "called out" is some sort of likes thing at Forbes. I got an email telling me that my comment was called out, and available for reference across the Forbes system - or something like that. No way do I have time to read that email again.
Anyway, I think it's a positive thing.
Thanks for brokering the truth when so few do.
If that's the case , they better work hard to get someone like myself to buy in :\
Only reason I stay with ATT at the moment us because I have no reason to change carriers - that and I want to avoid the headaches of changing carriers.
Cronis
Android Enthusiast
.
You stated and I quote - The quads with Krait 300 were released almost a year ago - I believe that you'll find that the Snapdragon 600 was announced for sampling on Jan 7 of this year for production delivery in the second quarter of 2013.
yep your right after double checking the dates it seems that the actual phones were not released till later... i was seeing the hardware preview units not actual release phones.
Can a quad handle more processes and threads more quickly than a dual-core?
Yes.
Can it do so with less power consumption?
Given the same tasks, there's an inflection point where you go from saving power to drawing a lot more power with a quad.
Thats not really true, while I was working at nasa we were developing a 81 core chip for an advanced STIS that pulled about 12w during peak load. most of the cores were running at a far higher frequency then you see in most high end desktop CPUs. I'm not really aloud to give any more details on it but suffices to say more cores =/ less efficient, if anything it can make a CPU more efficient. what we observed was that running multiple threads/processes over a large quantity of lower frequency cores was far more efficient then running the same quantity over fewer high frequency cores. Not only that but with the large quantity of down clocked cores their frequency could be increased when required leaving a huge amount of untapped power for when it was required compared to the high frequency low core CPUs.
I'm not making the presupposition you thought, nor did I debunk my own statement, I simply pointed out that you're not presenting the power/performance curve in your claims.
I said "whats even more interesting is that they could have given this phone a quad core and kept a lot of the battery efficiency the dual core has. The tech is there RIGHT NOW, they just chose not to use it. "
which you responded to by saying"was absolutely not true" then you proceeded to say"A quad core _might_ have performed as efficiently - provided that two of the cores went unused, in which case you don't care." giving an example of how what I said could be true, although not the method I was thinking of. An absolute statement only requires one example showing it to be incorrect for it to be made false, which for some reason you provided yourself
You're making absolute claims with underconstrained conditions - you can't do that fairly.
in what way? your starting to play with semantics which is kind of useless in this kind of discussion as it does not promote your own point of view or disprove mine. its a debate tactic used to confuse the opponent and as this is not so much a debate as a confluence of data, im not sure what your point is.
I'm sorry - I'm honestly not following something there - perhaps you can clarify that whole bit about apps needing to be optimized for multiple cores thing you said earlier.
ok using your mikie mouse example whats happens when a programs threads exceeded the number of cores available? Essentially what happens when a dev designs his software with 4 threads in mind to take advantage of the higher end tech (quad cores) and someone with a dual core tries to run it? will it be as well optimized? Thats essentially what I was talking about, but maybe there are loopholes I don't know about. I am definitely NOT a programer lol.
The bottom line for the consumer is this - if you expect a quad core to run the same battery efficiency as a dual core, then you'll have to limit its upper clock speed so that all four cores together won't draw more power than your dual core.
No one is doing that.
which is why I said quads can have similar results as dual cores, not the exact same efficiency. but we should be talking very small differences if the CPU architecture is properly designed. You dont need to limit the upper clock level on all the cores, you simply need to dynamically range the clocks so they can adjust to the amount of load they experience.
And finally - if a pair of Krait 300s only available this year are suddenly mid-range because there's only two of them here, then by that logic, when the Snapdragon 800 comes out a little later this year sporting 4 Krait 400s, then the One and SGS4 will instantly be midrange phones because they're using an outdated processor at that point.
I can't tell - is that your position?
super phones have a slightly longer life cycle do to initial higher end specs, they will fall into the mid end range just like the SG S3 is a mid end phone now. But are you going to argue that the SG S4 Mini is a super phone because it has Krait 300 cores, when its clearly being sold as a smaller mid level alternative to the SG S4 as it should be?
there are actually 3-4 mid spec phones being released in the near future with Krait 300 cores, its a solid mid spec CPU core for new phones.
And finally, nothing in my posts doesn't presuppose a natural software progression based on past trends, as I hope is casually obvious.
double negative -confuzzled lol- are you saying you are not presupposing software progression or that you are?
PS - do you know the software allocation between the CPUs and the GPU? I don't think that's obvious at all.
I doubt anyone but the android/moto software engineers know that tbh. As far as I know though most graphics are still processed by the GPU even though Nvidia would like to change GPUs into more of a general processing chip.
And by the way, you said -
You seem to be assuming that we live in static tech progression when in fact we don't, last years high end tech is this years mid end tech.
And this year's high-end tech is this year's high-end tech.
To me since the year is not over we have not exactly had all the high end tech that will be offered. Phones like the Moto X/S4 mini etc are just part of a new generation of mid spec phones. super phones from this generation will be out sometime in a few months and will probably have the 800 cores and adreno 330 etc. making the SGS4 and HTC one (aka last generations super phones) mid high spec devices.
I probably should add back to my profile that I've been in semiconductor r&d for a good many years - perhaps that would help abate ideas that I'm behind in understanding tech progression. :dontknow:
Oh I never assumed you were behind... I mainly started this convo cause you seemed more up to date then most
BTW - I don't know what "static tech progression" means, static is static, progression is progression. :dontknow:
It was just a phrase we coined while I was at nasa to express our frustration that OEMs were not developing new tech we needed to progress our research, they just kept reusing old tech. Aka static or a lack of progress.
To conclude I dont think people are angry that the Moto X lacks a quad core or 1080p screens. I think they just don't like the fact that they would have to pay just as much for the Moto X as they would for a device that does have those specs (as well as high end cameras and replaceable batteries/SD cards).
Also the amount of attention being brought to this is not a bad thing per say as it may even drive the price of the Moto X down more quickly.
Wolfedude88
Android Expert
New rumor pegs release on all carriers on August 23rd.
Well, August 23rd is meaningless if it's just the 16GB version. No way can I constrain myself to that little storage. Have fun, folks...
Wolfedude88
Android Expert
Yeah I understand. I can manage with 16gb pretty easily considering I rarely listen to music and at most have less than 50 songs on my phone, zero right now.
But I will still like to have 32 gb to be safe. I'm still considering switching to att so it will just depend on who releases this first for me to decide.
mistermojorizi
Android Enthusiast
here's my summary of some moto X reviews that came out yesterday. These are from perspective of someone who's going to get the dmaxx, but thinks the Moto X reviews are good insight into how that phone will work. http://androidforums.com/motorola-droid-maxx/749169-droid-maxx-reviews.html#post6048561
Cronis - I'm going to skip over the parts regarding sematics and debating tactics.
Let's try here -
Thats not really true, while I was working at nasa we were developing a 81 core chip for an advanced STIS that pulled about 12w during peak load. most of the cores were running at a far higher frequency then you see in most high end desktop CPUs. I'm not really aloud to give any more details on it but suffices to say more cores =/ less efficient, if anything it can make a CPU more efficient. what we observed was that running multiple threads/processes over a large quantity of lower frequency cores was far more efficient then running the same quantity over fewer high frequency cores. Not only that but with the large quantity of down clocked cores their frequency could be increased when required leaving a huge amount of untapped power for when it was required compared to the high frequency low core CPUs.
I find that interesting.
My multicore processor development was for guidance systems for unmanned flight vehicles.
In the processors we're discussing here, not only are the cores independently clocked, they are provided variable voltage separately for each core.
The inflection point for speed/cores-on vs. power draw is rather high going from a single core to a dual core.
It lowers (and we can discuss the envelope surrounding it if you think that matters) when going from 2 to 4 and again from 4 to 8 and so forth.
And I dare say, having worked with NASA, the DOE and DoD on a number of space-based and ground-based platforms, that most of the experience you're quoting is more than likely for specialized tasks with a non-stochastic scheduler - and not for general purpose computing as is the subject here.
If your experience with any 81 core processor for the program you're mentioning involved a stochastic scheduler, please do correct me.
I'm far from looking at a desktop and guessing on this subject myself while engaging in semantics and sophistry.
I'm not sure that you understand how your assumptions apply to GP computing with a Linux architecture and unfortunately, you're not in a position to get into details on that processor experience.
If you are able to discuss it, fire away.
I'm one of the principle authors of an asymmetric multiprocessing operating system for real time acquisition and control - very much the exact same model employed by Linux here. I'm sure I'll be able to keep up.
BTW -
I doubt anyone but the android/moto software engineers know that tbh. As far as I know though most graphics are still processed by the GPU even though Nvidia would like to change GPUs into more of a general processing chip.
I see - you misunderstood my point, which was - no one does, that can vary by app.
As far as using the GPU for GP work, a few of the more impressive iOS apps do exactly that, something possible with cooperative multitasking, not preemptive multitasking (without a LOT more silicon).
And by the way if I substitute -
It was just a phrase we coined while I was at nasa to express our frustration that OEMs were not developing new tech we needed to progress our research, they just kept reusing old tech. Aka static or a lack of progress.
Into -
You seem to be assuming that we live in static tech progression when in fact we don't, last years high end tech is this years mid end tech.
Then it's pretty clear that you were lumping me into some bad company - which was obvious by the fact that you said I'd assumed something contrary to my exact same quotes.
In any case, no matter on that.
You're entitled to your opinion that this is mid-range tech.
Your premise that this was last year's tech, you've agreed you were inaccurate on, and I believe I've addressed again the whole nature of the processing-efficiency/power-curve once again, from at least an equally solid basis of experience.
Cheers!
PS -
yep your right after double checking the dates it seems that the actual phones were not released till later... i was seeing the hardware preview units not actual release phones.
In 2012?
The Qualcomm Mobile Development Platform for the Snapdragon 800 was announced in May 2013 as I recall.
The Krait 200 S4 Pro Tablet dev platform came out in June 2012 I believe- https://developer.qualcomm.com/mobile-development/development-devices/snapdragon-s4-pro-apq8064-mdpt
I've not found anything for a Snapdragon MDP with Krait 300s from 2012.
And this is pretty basic but not uninteresting - https://developer.qualcomm.com/blog/multi-threading-android-apps-multi-core-processors-part-1-2
Let's try here -
Thats not really true, while I was working at nasa we were developing a 81 core chip for an advanced STIS that pulled about 12w during peak load. most of the cores were running at a far higher frequency then you see in most high end desktop CPUs. I'm not really aloud to give any more details on it but suffices to say more cores =/ less efficient, if anything it can make a CPU more efficient. what we observed was that running multiple threads/processes over a large quantity of lower frequency cores was far more efficient then running the same quantity over fewer high frequency cores. Not only that but with the large quantity of down clocked cores their frequency could be increased when required leaving a huge amount of untapped power for when it was required compared to the high frequency low core CPUs.
I find that interesting.
My multicore processor development was for guidance systems for unmanned flight vehicles.
In the processors we're discussing here, not only are the cores independently clocked, they are provided variable voltage separately for each core.
The inflection point for speed/cores-on vs. power draw is rather high going from a single core to a dual core.
It lowers (and we can discuss the envelope surrounding it if you think that matters) when going from 2 to 4 and again from 4 to 8 and so forth.
And I dare say, having worked with NASA, the DOE and DoD on a number of space-based and ground-based platforms, that most of the experience you're quoting is more than likely for specialized tasks with a non-stochastic scheduler - and not for general purpose computing as is the subject here.
If your experience with any 81 core processor for the program you're mentioning involved a stochastic scheduler, please do correct me.
I'm far from looking at a desktop and guessing on this subject myself while engaging in semantics and sophistry.
I'm not sure that you understand how your assumptions apply to GP computing with a Linux architecture and unfortunately, you're not in a position to get into details on that processor experience.
If you are able to discuss it, fire away.
I'm one of the principle authors of an asymmetric multiprocessing operating system for real time acquisition and control - very much the exact same model employed by Linux here.
I'm sure I'll be able to keep up.BTW -
I doubt anyone but the android/moto software engineers know that tbh. As far as I know though most graphics are still processed by the GPU even though Nvidia would like to change GPUs into more of a general processing chip.
I see - you misunderstood my point, which was - no one does, that can vary by app.
As far as using the GPU for GP work, a few of the more impressive iOS apps do exactly that, something possible with cooperative multitasking, not preemptive multitasking (without a LOT more silicon).
And by the way if I substitute -
It was just a phrase we coined while I was at nasa to express our frustration that OEMs were not developing new tech we needed to progress our research, they just kept reusing old tech. Aka static or a lack of progress.
Into -
You seem to be assuming that we live in static tech progression when in fact we don't, last years high end tech is this years mid end tech.
Then it's pretty clear that you were lumping me into some bad company - which was obvious by the fact that you said I'd assumed something contrary to my exact same quotes.
In any case, no matter on that.
You're entitled to your opinion that this is mid-range tech.
Your premise that this was last year's tech, you've agreed you were inaccurate on, and I believe I've addressed again the whole nature of the processing-efficiency/power-curve once again, from at least an equally solid basis of experience.
Cheers!
PS -
yep your right after double checking the dates it seems that the actual phones were not released till later... i was seeing the hardware preview units not actual release phones.
In 2012?
The Qualcomm Mobile Development Platform for the Snapdragon 800 was announced in May 2013 as I recall.
The Krait 200 S4 Pro Tablet dev platform came out in June 2012 I believe- https://developer.qualcomm.com/mobile-development/development-devices/snapdragon-s4-pro-apq8064-mdpt
I've not found anything for a Snapdragon MDP with Krait 300s from 2012.
And this is pretty basic but not uninteresting - https://developer.qualcomm.com/blog/multi-threading-android-apps-multi-core-processors-part-1-2
Cronis
Android Enthusiast
Cronis - I'm going to skip over the parts regarding sematics and debating tactics.
yea im cutting a lot out in the quotes for time sake and because i dont want em to engulf an entire thread page.
And I dare say, having worked with NASA, the DOE and DoD on a number of space-based and ground-based platforms, that most of the experience you're quoting is more than likely for specialized tasks with a non-stochastic scheduler - and not for general purpose computing as is the subject here.
It actually started out as a CPU designed for optics controlers but they kind of stumbled on something that showed a lot of potential in the general computing arena though at which point a new contract broke off from the original.
If your experience with any 81 core processor for the program you're mentioning involved a stochastic scheduler, please do correct me.
I'm not sure that you understand how your assumptions apply to GP computing with a Linux architecture and unfortunately, you're not in a position to get into details on that processor experience.
lol yea id rather stay out of jail, or worse
il link this though as a generic reference, Intel had some similar ideas although they implemented them very differently.
Intel pledges 80 cores in five years - CNET News
from the lack of 80 core CPUs in 2011 im going to guess that project didn't pan out for them though lol
Sorry for the extremely general points but I really cant go into any details on the project.
You're entitled to your opinion that this is mid-range tech.
yea at this point for me its pretty much between the Moto X and a S4 Mini. I like that the S4 mini has the replaceable battery and SD card, but the Moto X looks very interesting. Still deciding if its just a gimick though. guess we will have to wait and see!
I'm not looking for a super phone or anything just a decent spec user with good battery. Would have loved a great camera but i cant seem to find any good cams on phones in the smaller sizes. except maybe the Nokia N8, but that would not make for a very strong smartphone lol
rabidhunter
Android Expert
Wow, can you say, poor salesmanship. It is one thing to highlight other products, but a no no to bad mouth any product like that. So unprofessional, I would have talked to a manager later.
I just left a VZW store gEEk and had damn near the identical response from the manager. Moto sucks, here's a nice S4 for you. Moto's are junk with poor signal, interpreted by me as "my commision is way higher on Samsung devices.":banghead:
Android & me:
Motorola is the first manufacturer to beat the specs race | Android and Me
If I got ninja'd... well... too bad!
Motorola is the first manufacturer to beat the specs race | Android and Me
If I got ninja'd... well... too bad!
Old Member
Android Expert
Verizon Roadmap, maybe not new info but worth seeing.
Latest leaked road map shows Verizon Wireless will have a busy August, which includes the release of the HTC One on August 29th | TalkAndroid.com
Latest leaked road map shows Verizon Wireless will have a busy August, which includes the release of the HTC One on August 29th | TalkAndroid.com
Jersey Tom
Android Enthusiast
I'd really like to ditch the Samdung GNex and get on with something new ASAP. Really on its last legs - microphone doesn't even work (I know right, who needs a phone that makes calls?). Even considering switching back to my Droid X.
Only a few more weeks I guess...
Honestly the 16 / 32 gb thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. Not for a phone anyway. I don't think I've ever used microSD expansion or a ton of storage space. Nor do I watch movies or game on my phone. But to each their own, maybe I'm the odd man out.
The customization thing.. eh that kinda bugs me. Kind of a lot, especially needing a new device pronto! I get where they (Moto & ATT) are coming from with regard to exclusivity. But how many people are really switching carriers these days? Is it more than I'm thinking? Can they dangle a big enough carrot to make someone switch from Company A to Company B? For me, if I get a good price break from work on Company A, well that's what I'm using. A number of friends and family of mine.. if a carrier is the only one with decent coverage in their area, well, no choice there! Maybe it's different in the really big metro areas.
Long story short the various exclusivity deals do more to aggravate me than to motivate me to switch from A to B, especially now with SO many devices being so close on specs or performance.
Only a few more weeks I guess...
Honestly the 16 / 32 gb thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. Not for a phone anyway. I don't think I've ever used microSD expansion or a ton of storage space. Nor do I watch movies or game on my phone. But to each their own, maybe I'm the odd man out.
The customization thing.. eh that kinda bugs me. Kind of a lot, especially needing a new device pronto! I get where they (Moto & ATT) are coming from with regard to exclusivity. But how many people are really switching carriers these days? Is it more than I'm thinking? Can they dangle a big enough carrot to make someone switch from Company A to Company B? For me, if I get a good price break from work on Company A, well that's what I'm using. A number of friends and family of mine.. if a carrier is the only one with decent coverage in their area, well, no choice there! Maybe it's different in the really big metro areas.
Long story short the various exclusivity deals do more to aggravate me than to motivate me to switch from A to B, especially now with SO many devices being so close on specs or performance.
- Status