Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 118
Like Tree13Likes
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilKell View Post
    Of course it's not logical from a user perspective. A single core 1.4GHz will run circles around a dual core 1.2GHz in terms of most user experience on a smartphone, especially a smartphone with a 1230mAh battery.

    Adding any kind of a 4G radio to the device would also necessitate a much larger battery. Who knows what HP is doing at this point, though? Their strategy has got to be controlled by a dartboard at this point.
    Actually if you look at it from a PC perspective, the overlocked single core CPU like a Q6600 dual core Intel CPU will run games slightly faster than a slower clocked quad core CPU in games pretty much only. Once you get into multi-tasking, the quadcore will crush it.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Weaser999 View Post
    Actually if you look at it from a PC perspective, the overlocked single core CPU like a Q6600 dual core Intel CPU will run games slightly faster than a slower clocked quad core CPU in games pretty much only. Once you get into multi-tasking, the quadcore will crush it.
    That's because in the world of PCs, Windows already ship with an SMP enabled kernel so it takes advantage of it.

    Not so much for webOS.
    Palm IIIc -> Sony CLIÉ T650C -> Sony TJ-37 -> Palm TX -> Palm Centro -> Palm Pre Bell -> Palm Pre Plus Bell/Verizon Hybrid -> HP Veer -> HP Pre 3 NA -> BlackBerry Classic -> BlackBerry Priv

    It's a Late Goodbye, such a Late Goodbye.

    Need OEM Palm Pre parts? See here
  3. dohcstunr's Avatar
    Posts
    53 Posts
    Global Posts
    68 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilKell View Post
    Who knows what HP is doing at this point, though? Their strategy has got to be controlled by a dartboard at this point.
    I'd say more like a "pin the tail on the donkey" strategy.
  4. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToniCipriani View Post
    That's because in the world of PCs, Windows already ship with an SMP enabled kernel so it takes advantage of it.

    Not so much for webOS.
    They disabled SMP in the Linux kernel? I've never looked at the kernel config, I just doubt they would have done that.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Weaser999 View Post
    Actually if you look at it from a PC perspective, the overlocked single core CPU like a Q6600 dual core Intel CPU will run games slightly faster than a slower clocked quad core CPU in games pretty much only. Once you get into multi-tasking, the quadcore will crush it.
    This is just a nearly completely false statement.

    #1 - In a great majority of applications, a faster single core will outperform a slower multi-core. Very few applications can be programmed to run efficiently in a multi-threaded manner. This is a fact. It is not an opinion or debatable.

    #2 - I don't know how many times I've had to post this, but here it goes again: The applications, in general, that benefit from multiple cores are very processor intensive and complex applications such as video encoding, file compression, and advanced graphics rendering or editing. Smartphones do not have the appropriate processing power to handle these tasks, and even if they did, current battery technology is too limited to handle the power requirements in a smartphone form factor.

    #3 - You need to quantify "multitasking" and "crushing". My little Palm Pre, overclocked to 1GHz using screenstate 500/1000 is able to effectively run Sprint GPS Navigation, Pandora Radio, Spaz, Facebook, Email, and Text Messaging at the same time with little lag. It's working with only 256MB of RAM and a TI OMAP processor that is way out of date.

    Are you insinuating that you would like to do more than what I've laid out? What intensive applications do you want to run on your smartphone that could run silently in the background where a SoC easily 2x as powerful as the original Pre's TI OMAP 3430 overlocked to 1GHz is currently insufficient?

    Are you living in the world of benchmarks when it comes to "crushing"? Does it matter how much additional unused processing capability you have? I've got news for you, we're not working in a desktop computing environment where there is unlimited processing power and a ton of applications that have not been optimized for power consumption. 99.999% of all smartphone users couldn't care less if the Pre3 scored higher on some inaccurate, synthetic, multitasking benchmark suite. People care if their smartphone is responsive, smoothly runs the applications they need, and lasts at least a full day before they need to charge the battery under normal use or preferably even heavy use.

    Also, have you considered the other features of effective multi-core processors which are extremely difficult to build into a smartphone form factor because of battery size? Things like much larger shared cache and more RAM? Both items use additional power and are REQUIRED if you want that sweet multiple core processor to have the synthetic benchmark "crushing" power you seem so enthusiastic about.

    Take a look at the battery life expectations of a Core i7 laptop compared to a Core i3 or Core i5 and let me know if Core i7 is the way to go for mobile device with limited access to charging... It's like the old phrase "It can pass everything but a gas station"
    Last edited by EvilKell; 07/11/2011 at 03:34 PM.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by angiest View Post
    They disabled SMP in the Linux kernel? I've never looked at the kernel config, I just doubt they would have done that.
    More like they didn't compile it in. Again it just doesn't make sense to. After all these are embedded devices we're talking here. Any bit of unnecessary code increases memory usage.
    Palm IIIc -> Sony CLIÉ T650C -> Sony TJ-37 -> Palm TX -> Palm Centro -> Palm Pre Bell -> Palm Pre Plus Bell/Verizon Hybrid -> HP Veer -> HP Pre 3 NA -> BlackBerry Classic -> BlackBerry Priv

    It's a Late Goodbye, such a Late Goodbye.

    Need OEM Palm Pre parts? See here
  7. #87  
    Evilkill are u sayin that games do not benefit from 2 cores?

    Sent from my T7575 using Board Express
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by astraith View Post
    Evilkill are u sayin that games do not benefit from 2 cores?

    Sent from my T7575 using Board Express
    It's not possible to make a blanket statement like that since some games do, and some games don't. The Unreal 3 Engine is designed for use with multiple threads, but many engines are not.

    I did a quick google search and it looks like this guy put together a few tests to determine how multiple cores were helping several games.
    http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1515118

    The issue with a single application using multiple threads is that processes have to be running concurrently. You have to be able to split the process, feed it to two separate cores, and recombine the process. If one part of the process is completed earlier than the other, you've got one core sitting around and waiting for the second process to complete. The processes have to be recombined in order or you'll get nothing but garbage out. Some aspects of programs may be inherently easier to split or they may have concurrent processes that are not interdependent upon each other so it's easier to split the engine's processes to two or more cores.

    I'm not a programmer (other than a little goofing off and troubleshooting) so I won't pretend to know how to write the code, but I do understand how it works at least at a fundamental level.

    You can also take a look on wikipedia in regard to multiple cores or multiple threaded apps or something like that. The wiki explanation will point out more reasons that multiple threaded applications are not necessarily all they're cracked up to be.

    Where multiple cores really shine is in mulitasking, but multitasking when a single core is insufficient. If you're playing an intensive game, especially one you can't pause, and you're trying to pop back and forth to the internet. It's not a scenario I would really expect on a smartphone... but on a tablet, that's a different story. The best example I can give in real life experience is playing World of Warcraft. It's a pretty CPU intensive game, and you can't pause it, but there were a lot of times (when it wasn't so easy and lame) that you might want to get some information on a quest or an NPC online so you'd swap back and forth between the game and the interwebs. Trying that on a single core processor, even a pretty powerful one, resulted in some protest. Conversely, a pretty weak dual core processor like the Pentium D series was able to handle it like butter in comparison.
  9. ijip's Avatar
    Posts
    885 Posts
    Global Posts
    960 Global Posts
    #89  
    totally agree, adding a core is not at all like adding mhz. If you add cores and dont program the software to take advantage you can actually slow things down.
    if the Pre3 is released as a dual Core now I hope it packs webos 3.0 as well. I'm pretty sure 2.x is not and will never be optimized for dual cores....
  10. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToniCipriani View Post
    More like they didn't compile it in. Again it just doesn't make sense to. After all these are embedded devices we're talking here. Any bit of unnecessary code increases memory usage.
    I've never configured or built an ARM kernel, so I don't know if SMP is enabled or disabled by default on that particular platform.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilKell View Post
    This is just a nearly completely false statement.

    #1 - In a great majority of applications, a faster single core will outperform a slower multi-core. Very few applications can be programmed to run efficiently in a multi-threaded manner. This is a fact. It is not an opinion or debatable.

    #2 - I don't know how many times I've had to post this, but here it goes again: The applications, in general, that benefit from multiple cores are very processor intensive and complex applications such as video encoding, file compression, and advanced graphics rendering or editing. Smartphones do not have the appropriate processing power to handle these tasks, and even if they did, current battery technology is too limited to handle the power requirements in a smartphone form factor.

    #3 - You need to quantify "multitasking" and "crushing". My little Palm Pre, overclocked to 1GHz using screenstate 500/1000 is able to effectively run Sprint GPS Navigation, Pandora Radio, Spaz, Facebook, Email, and Text Messaging at the same time with little lag. It's working with only 256MB of RAM and a TI OMAP processor that is way out of date.

    Are you insinuating that you would like to do more than what I've laid out? What intensive applications do you want to run on your smartphone that could run silently in the background where a SoC easily 2x as powerful as the original Pre's TI OMAP 3430 overlocked to 1GHz is currently insufficient?

    Are you living in the world of benchmarks when it comes to "crushing"? Does it matter how much additional unused processing capability you have? I've got news for you, we're not working in a desktop computing environment where there is unlimited processing power and a ton of applications that have not been optimized for power consumption. 99.999% of all smartphone users couldn't care less if the Pre3 scored higher on some inaccurate, synthetic, multitasking benchmark suite. People care if their smartphone is responsive, smoothly runs the applications they need, and lasts at least a full day before they need to charge the battery under normal use or preferably even heavy use.

    Also, have you considered the other features of effective multi-core processors which are extremely difficult to build into a smartphone form factor because of battery size? Things like much larger shared cache and more RAM? Both items use additional power and are REQUIRED if you want that sweet multiple core processor to have the synthetic benchmark "crushing" power you seem so enthusiastic about.

    Take a look at the battery life expectations of a Core i7 laptop compared to a Core i3 or Core i5 and let me know if Core i7 is the way to go for mobile device with limited access to charging... It's like the old phrase "It can pass everything but a gas station"
    If this is the case, then why are some articles stating that dual core CPU phones might actually be more power efficient? If Single core is so much more efficient and faster than multi core processesors, then you better email Nvidia and Qualicom and let them know they shouldn't move to quad core CPU's for the mobile market. I'm afraid single core CPU's are old news and outdated. Even game consoles use multi-core CPU's for better performance.. aka xbox 360 or PS3. Single core CPU's have to run faster and hotter in order to keep up with multi-core cpu's. It's not the CPU thats holding the Pre back from fluid performance, but rather the OS itself not yet optimized enough for smooth operation.
  12. Targon's Avatar
    Posts
    502 Posts
    Global Posts
    716 Global Posts
    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by Weaser999 View Post
    Actually if you look at it from a PC perspective, the overlocked single core CPU like a Q6600 dual core Intel CPU will run games slightly faster than a slower clocked quad core CPU in games pretty much only. Once you get into multi-tasking, the quadcore will crush it.
    That is incorrect on multiple levels, and rather than just say that without backing it up, here's the reason...

    For starters, the operating system will split different program threads between the available cores. If an application is written as a single-threaded app, then it can only run on one core or the other, while a multi-threaded application will have the different threads assigned to the different processor cores. So, even in a worst-case scenario where every application is single-threaded, different apps will be thrown onto the different cores, and it balances out the use of system resources. This means that a dual-core system(either two single-core processors or a single dual-core processor) will ALWAYS come across as a better/more responsive machine. All those background tasks get split up, leaving more resources per core available for whatever application(s) you may want to run.

    If you are talking about a huge difference in performance, such as single-core 2.8GHz vs. dual-core 1.8GHz, then yes, older programs may run faster on the single-core 2.8GHz, but in general, just having all those background tasks getting split will be a much better situation.

    Going from dual-core to quad, you start to see your argument start to make a LITTLE more sense, since with dual-core, you already have background tasks split up between the two cores, and going to quad core, while an improvement, won't be a huge advantage for older single-threaded applications. Even then, you have to look at how much your machine is doing at once, and as time goes forward, more applications will be written with a multi-threaded design. Newer designs are also more efficient on a clock for clock basis overall, so if you take a processor with a newer core design, at the same clock speed, the new processors will be faster.

    In the "PC" realm, you can find out the core design of any given processor, and find out how well it runs compared to the other generations. AMD has not had a really new core design for quite a while, so on a per-clock basis, you don't see a huge improvement, but AMD is due to release their next core design called Bulldozer that should be quite a bit faster clock-for-clock, but we shall see. Intel released its new core designs with the Core i3, i5, and i7.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by ManyCowsMoo View Post
    Totally false. The Q6600 is a quad core CPU and back in 2007 when it released, generally higher clocked dual core CPUs performed better. Now, as all high end CPUs are at least 4 cores (there are some 6 core ones currently and 8 core CPUs will be out in a couple months), most recent games take advantage of more cores. For example, Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Civilization 5 run fairly poorly on dual core CPUs but see almost a 2x speed increase with 4 cores (assuming similar architecture).

    As for how this applies to WebOS: I honestly have no idea if any apps are multithreaded (one app can run across multiple processor cores), but where it really helps is when you have multiple apps running, if they need to use the CPU, with two cores two apps can run at the same time. The problem is, currently in the phone/tablet market, it seems that single core processors run at faster speeds than dual core CPUs (probably due to power usage), so if you primarily have one app actually using the CPU, the single core processor will perform better.
    My bad, I just rememberd the q6600 was quad core. Anyhow, i'm not denying that single core cpu's can run individual programs faster when clocked higher than dual or quad core. My point is, OS's will be optimized for multi-core use and it's just a matter of time. It's common sense to know that applications not written for multi-core use will perform better on a faster single core cpu. However, once apps are written for dual core or quad core cpu's, the performance gains will be substantial. Just as certain games run substantially faster on a i7 as opposed to an older quad core cpu. So if a phone uses a dual core CPU, it will in all likelihood become more 'futureproof' than the standard single core cpu's.
  14. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Targon View Post
    For starters, the operating system will split different program threads between the available cores. If an application is written as a single-threaded app, then it can only run on one core or the other, while a multi-threaded application will have the different threads assigned to the different processor cores. So, even in a worst-case scenario where every application is single-threaded, different apps will be thrown onto the different cores, and it balances out the use of system resources. This means that a dual-core system(either two single-core processors or a single dual-core processor) will ALWAYS come across as a better/more responsive machine. All those background tasks get split up, leaving more resources per core available for whatever application(s) you may want to run.
    True story. A number of years ago (we'll say about 8 or 9) while I was still an AIX admin, I took a call from one of our special Oracle DBA's. He was bringing a new application online and called to discuss the performance of the future production machine (a multi-way SMP box with what, at the time, was a lot of horsepower, but the CPUs themselves were relatively slow at ~286mHz), with his smaller (4 way, I think, with ~750mHz procs) dev system. His Oracle export was taking a lot longer on the bigger system and was wondering why.

    Turns out, it was a single threaded process. It was taxing the single CPU it could use. The overall box was faster, but this one unoptimized task was slower. This, of course, was someone who really should have known better.
  15. Xadion's Avatar
    Posts
    268 Posts
    Global Posts
    956 Global Posts
    #95  
    With dual core mobile CPU's I dont see why people that make the OS just tell the OS to do everything on CPU2 so the "non" optimized apps run on a non taxed 1st CPU- because of all the fragmentation of how apps etc are programed as listed in many posts above.

    Computer OSs and Apps are just now getting to really use multi-core processors and its been years...will phones be much faster in catching up?
  16. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by xadion View Post
    With dual core mobile CPU's I dont see why people that make the OS just tell the OS to do everything on CPU2 so the "non" optimized apps run on a non taxed 1st CPU- because of all the fragmentation of how apps etc are programed as listed in many posts above.

    Computer OSs and Apps are just now getting to really use multi-core processors and its been years...will phones be much faster in catching up?
    Linux kernel 2.6 (upon which webOS is built) was release at the end of 2003, and, IIRC, the driving force behind it was to improve support of multi-core CPUs. Other free UNIX-like operating systems (such as FreeBSD) had similar releases about this time. Add the implementation of pthreads at about the same time, and the free UNIXen have had pretty good support for multiple processor systems for most of a decade. The commercial UNIXen (on Sparc, Power, etc) have had it even longer. It is Windows that held consumers back (as usual).

    Now, I am not sure multi processor or multicore ARM systems have been around, and how much work had to be done on the Linux kernel to add good support for it.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by Weaser999 View Post
    If this is the case, then why are some articles stating that dual core CPU phones might actually be more power efficient? If Single core is so much more efficient and faster than multi core processesors, then you better email Nvidia and Qualicom and let them know they shouldn't move to quad core CPU's for the mobile market. I'm afraid single core CPU's are old news and outdated. Even game consoles use multi-core CPU's for better performance.. aka xbox 360 or PS3. Single core CPU's have to run faster and hotter in order to keep up with multi-core cpu's. It's not the CPU thats holding the Pre back from fluid performance, but rather the OS itself not yet optimized enough for smooth operation.
    I've read some articles regarding the potential for dual core improvements in smartphones, and it seems like they're awfully speculative. In regard to Nvidia and Qualcomm's future of moving to multi-core, they need to be able to play one-uppy in the Android market. There is a place for multi core, but that's not currently in the smartphone arena. They'll get there. Maybe even one more generation out (another year away), but I don't see the advantages now.

    These apples vs oranges arguments are getting old. Needs for smartphones, PCs, and consoles are all very different. I'm not at all moved by your arguments within the context of how smartphones are used.
  18. Targon's Avatar
    Posts
    502 Posts
    Global Posts
    716 Global Posts
    #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by angiest View Post
    Linux kernel 2.6 (upon which webOS is built) was release at the end of 2003, and, IIRC, the driving force behind it was to improve support of multi-core CPUs. Other free UNIX-like operating systems (such as FreeBSD) had similar releases about this time. Add the implementation of pthreads at about the same time, and the free UNIXen have had pretty good support for multiple processor systems for most of a decade. The commercial UNIXen (on Sparc, Power, etc) have had it even longer. It is Windows that held consumers back (as usual).

    Now, I am not sure multi processor or multicore ARM systems have been around, and how much work had to be done on the Linux kernel to add good support for it.
    When you have the Linux kernel there, no matter what architecture it is written for, it has the same overall design, so it will support multi-threaded applications, and as long as the kernel knows how to deal with multi-core processors, you have a very fast evolution as the hardware catches up.

    Windows itself has had the ability to handle multi-core processors since Windows XP, but APPLICATIONS have been single-threaded. So the OS itself was not the limiting factor. Remember, Windows XP was an evolution from Windows 2000, which had evolved from Windows NT 4. All of these had support for SMP.

    When it comes to power conservation in multi-core processors, the recent developments have had it where individual cores can have an individual power state, so by having more cores, you have more of the processor that can be run in low-power mode for power conservation. All of this has gone a bit off topic though, but in general, you can expect a dual-core 1.2GHz to feel MUCH more responsive compared to a single-core 1.4GHz chip. A dual-core 1GHz chip may run a given application slower than a single-core 1.4GHz, but the overall OS performance for multi-tasking will be faster.

    And yes, I've been around this stuff for a long long time now, and even have an old Debian 1.3.1 install CD set around here somewhere.
  19. #99  
    Hi guys,

    In all that sci-fi rumour frenzy here, did it occurred to anyone, that they might simply pulled off the tech specs page for purely marketing reasons? Knowing how unfavourable this spec sheet will look like, in autumn, compared to any high-end competitor? Knowing that going Apple path, and marketing User Experience, and NOT specifications, is their ONLY chance to sell any significant numbers of them?

    And frankly, while I'd still prefer higher res screen, it is but the only part of Pre 3 specs sheet that bothers me at all. I know that 1.4GHz SOC will have plenty of steam, to keep the party rolling and cards flying like in best Vegas casinos.

    If they decided (and rightly so), that they cannot compete on specs with current gen phones, it is only but logical to try and sell it as a device, where you are buying user experience/functionality, and not specs.

    Makes PERFECT sense in the Enterprise market (how many Alienware laptops you think Dell is selling to it's customers, vs mainstream Latitudes?), if priced correctly, and with given specs, shouldn't harm those consumers, who aren't after "latest & greatest"

    Of course it would take a lot of properly focused marketing, showcasing above mentioned User Experience, for those pragmatic customers who value function & reason over "best of the best of the week"

    Honestly, stop dreaming about out of this earth specs for Pre 3, they couldn't get it out of the door as is, so they are certainly not adding themselves even more to do with some last minute (and imaginary) specs update. Be more rational, and use Ockham's razor here & there from time to time ;-)
  20. #100  
    (Sorry for double post, but could not edit my prev one from this client.)

    ..and please do not forget, that while kernel might be multi threaded, webOS UI might not necessarily be so, out of the box, bcoz apps are de facto ran in browser. So it might be much simpler to gain from faster single core chip, than optimize for multicore one.
    Cheers
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions