Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. OxyPunk's Avatar
    Posts
    9 Posts
    Global Posts
    10 Global Posts
       #1  
    Of course dual core sounds cooler, but for a mid-range or low end product a single core cortex A9 processor sound great! If the Pre3's processor was an A9 based chip that would be amazing, but as far as I am aware it is not.

    Is there any reason processor manufactures are not making any A9 based chips as single cores? How would you guys feel if HPalm's new devices were still single core, but A9 instead? I doubt it would beat a tegra 2, but would give us less to complain about. Might even be better until WebOSs is optimized for dual-cores.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by EGill View Post
    Of course dual core sounds cooler, but for a mid-range or low end product a single core cortex A9 processor sound great! If the Pre3's processor was an A9 based chip that would be amazing, but as far as I am aware it is not.

    Is there any reason processor manufactures are not making any A9 based chips as single cores? How would you guys feel if HPalm's new devices were still single core, but A9 instead? I doubt it would beat a tegra 2, but would give us less to complain about. Might even be better until WebOSs is optimized for dual-cores.
    From my understanding, the OMAP 4430 is based off of the cortext A9, could be OMAP 4440 though. Anyway, those can be single core -- OEM's just choose on to run a single core processor. And you are correct, the Snapdragon is not based of A9 (nor A8) but is based of ARM v7. However, I am not entirely sure what all that means (like I do not know the differences between each cortex).

    But there ya go!
  3. OxyPunk's Avatar
    Posts
    9 Posts
    Global Posts
    10 Global Posts
       #3  
    I see. Although I would rather have a dual core, I would not mind a single core A9 at all. All I know is they are more efficient per clock and on the battery. Seems like manufactures are running up the price of devices going with the dual cores when other than the QNX & Honeycomb, I know of no mobile OS ready for dual cores.

    What I find sad with android is everyone stating the next gingerbread OS will be optimized for dual cores. I don't think they read Google's description of 2.4 I saw very well. What it stated is that it would take apps designed for dual core, and make them run on single cores. That is not optimizing for dual core at all to me.

    Between a dual core now or ARM v7, I would go with the dual core. But a single core A9 now would not put me off.
  4. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #4  
    All of the RIM's "leaked" roadmap for Blackberry 6.1 handsets and both the Pre3 and the Veer are single-core Qualcomm devices.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by EGill View Post
    I see. Although I would rather have a dual core, I would not mind a single core A9 at all. All I know is they are more efficient per clock and on the battery. Seems like manufactures are running up the price of devices going with the dual cores when other than the QNX & Honeycomb, I know of no mobile OS ready for dual cores.

    What I find sad with android is everyone stating the next gingerbread OS will be optimized for dual cores. I don't think they read Google's description of 2.4 I saw very well. What it stated is that it would take apps designed for dual core, and make them run on single cores. That is not optimizing for dual core at all to me.

    Between a dual core now or ARM v7, I would go with the dual core. But a single core A9 now would not put me off.


    Quote Originally Posted by samab View Post
    All of the RIM's "leaked" roadmap for Blackberry 6.1 handsets and both the Pre3 and the Veer are single-core Qualcomm devices.
    Yep I have seen that but they are not based off of A9 (like OMAP 4430 AND 4440 is)
  6. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #6  
    Qualcomm already won the single core war.

    A 1.4 GHz Snapdragon (with the old Scorpion core, not the new Krait core) is going to be the same speed as a 1.2 GHz Cortex A9. It is not economical for the other silicon manufacturers to design a brand new single A9 core based CPU --- when Qualcomm can do a simple process shrink (that is going cost Qualcomm maybe 1/10 of the cost) to get a 1.4 GHz Snapdragon.
  7. OxyPunk's Avatar
    Posts
    9 Posts
    Global Posts
    10 Global Posts
       #7  
    What do you mean by shrink?

    Doesn't seem like Qualcomm cares for using the Cortex A9 architecture considering even the Touchpad is just to Scorpions slapped together. And with your logic, why would TI invest in making The new OMAP 4430 and 4440 chips when they could have just shrank as well? Just curious.

    I would be willing to pay an extra $20 just for battery tech in these phones, lol.
  8. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #8  
    The first generation of 1 GHz Snapdragons were 65nm chips. Then they migrated to 45nm and were able to go up to 1.2 GHz and 1.4 GHz. Much like the console games --- both xbox and ps3 were able to shrink their chips and "slim" down (lower heat and lower power usage). That's not a lot of money to spend for Qualcomm.

    This is like buying a car vs. leasing a car. When you buying a car, you maintain it in better conditions and you keep the car longer. When you lease a car, you don't mind if the car is going to fall apart in 5 years because you are only leasing the car for 3 years.

    Qualcomm creates their own cores --- they spent a lot of money up front and they own the cores. So they intend to design their cores to "last longer" --- i.e. Qualcomm's Scorpion core was designed from day 1 to be multicore-able (whereas the Cortex A8 cannot be multicore).

    Qualcomm has a "longer" product cycle --- their new core is going to compete with Cortex A15.

Posting Permissions