# Dual core or quad core



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## exb0 (Mar 21, 2012)

people would tell you to get the quad, but personally I wouldn't cause 
a : No app needs THAT much power yet, ( I might be wrong here. )
b : Battery life.


----------



## korny647 (Mar 21, 2012)

JunyuT. said:


> people would tell you to get the quad, but personally I wouldn't cause
> a : No app needs THAT much power yet, ( I might be wrong here. )
> b : Battery life.

Click to collapse



I would tend to agree with you. 

Especially if your not worried about games.

Sent from my G2X.
Rocking stock CM 7.2.0-RC1


----------



## hawkeye2188 (Mar 21, 2012)

While I agree with the guys above, but I'm also in the same boat as the TC. I'm currently upgrade eligible and I've thought about buying a dual-core phone as I currently have an Aria but I think I've decided to wait until the Galaxy S3. If any of the rumors are true about it, it wont be out of date by my next upgrade.


----------



## inteller (Mar 21, 2012)

deleted


----------



## vampir4997 (Mar 21, 2012)

The only "announced" quad cores are the huwai whatever its called(sorry dont remember the name of the phone).   And the htc one x.  Unfortunatly the htc will not have a quad core in america yet because the tegra3 is not lte compatable so i think we all gonna have to settle for dual core this year.  I could be wrong but it seems like we wont get a quad for a while yet.  

Sent from my PG06100 using XDA


----------



## dudejb (Mar 21, 2012)

Luckily I just upgraded to the Samsung Glide in November but I know what you mean. Why go Dual core if you can get Quad core and be set for a good amount of time.  The only thing I worry about quad core is will it eat up battery power?


----------



## glacierguy (Mar 21, 2012)

My dual core is plenty and it doesn't even have dual core optimization ics OS yet... I can't think of any reason to need a quad core. It's like using a server to power notepad 

Sent from my Energized HTC Ruby using Tapatalk 2 Beta 2 and WARP SPEED!


----------



## dinhdai88 (Mar 21, 2012)

I'm using quad core. i feel ok
Vietnam holidays-Red dragon Halong bay
Song Xanh Sampan Cruise Mekong


----------



## Kerosine (Mar 21, 2012)

*What about Four+1?*

What about 4-PLUS-1 technology? Any idea whether such systems actually make things run more efficiently using only 1 core (the "ninja" core) for low-end tasks? No idea about this, just floating it to see what news there is out there about this technology.


----------



## h.motawee (Mar 21, 2012)

First of all based on ur bugdet 

Second quad core rocks but if u don't need intensive processing with ur smartphone I would say go for the galaxy note its amazing

Sent from my HTC Vision using xda premium


----------



## Killbynature (Mar 21, 2012)

Dual core most people will tell you quadcore is faster than dual core this is false. Just because you have two more of something doesn't mean anything if you can not use it properly. This is why tegra 3 as you see gets beat by Qualcomm krait (dual core) and Ti omap 5 (dual core). Its not about how many cores its about efficiency. Nvidia pretty much doesn't know what they are doing still in the phone market.


----------



## T__ (Mar 21, 2012)

Quad core on a phone is not required imo.  

I would stick with a dual core (My Galaxy SII has never given me any trouble) - quad core is pricy and no real need for it at present.  But you can always do a future investment since you will eventually want a quad core. 

I am personally waiting till my quad core phones drop in price and are required.


----------



## vampir4997 (Mar 21, 2012)

The note does look sweet but my luck sprint wont get it and htc said the one x will be the fagship phone for this year

Sent from my PG06100 using XDA


----------



## icenight89 (Mar 21, 2012)

when android can fully utilize two cores, then we'll talk.  Until then this is pointless. Quad core = less battery


----------



## usaff22 (Mar 21, 2012)

Why no three cores?

I would like an upgrade as well lol, even if it means 1GHz Single core as I am currently surviving on 528MHz OC'ed to 692MHz (ofc single core) lol

It can handle  everyday tasks all right but when you mention 3D games it dies (no gpu)


----------



## DomCowell (Mar 21, 2012)

T__ said:


> Quad core on a phone is not required imo.
> 
> I would stick with a dual core (My Galaxy SII has never given me any trouble) - quad core is pricy and no real need for it at present.  But you can always do a future investment since you will eventually want a quad core.
> 
> I am personally waiting till my quad core phones drop in price and are required.

Click to collapse



The thing is, the HTC One X in the UK can be brought for £28.50 a month - I would have to pay more than that for the Galaxy Nexus.  Quad core phones are no more expensive to buy than dual core - phone manufacturers realise that at present, they simply don't have a market for constant £41 on free prices.


----------



## Killbynature (Mar 21, 2012)

For the people who say quad core means less battery are wrong. Nvidia is still using  
A9 architecture and 40 mn. Ti omap5, exynos (5, something), Krait, all beat tegra  3 quad core technology. Ti omap 5 and krait are using 28mn and exynos supposedly using 32mn. All of these processors are a15 which pretty much destroys nvidia a9 architecture. They also use less power voltage and completing the same task. Compared to tegra 3.


----------



## KayxGee1 (Mar 21, 2012)

Quad core is pointless if you don't have the battery to back it up. The Razr Maxx has a 3,300mAh battery. That should have been available a long time ago. Companies keep designing phones with bigger screens, more powerful processors, and energy-draining 4G LTE. This is all fun and well, but the battery is the most important part and need to be worked on more.


----------



## Aircondition (Mar 21, 2012)

In some cases dual core processors can actually be faster than processors with quad core.


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## xdå_developer (Mar 21, 2012)

Which would be faster and smoother: a quad core phone with a ok GPU, or a dual core phone with a good GPU? Which tasks are handled by the CPU and which by the GPU? Even on a PC you only need more than 2 cores if you are doing HD video editing, 3d modeling + rendering, large file compression, etc...


----------



## The Dogan (Mar 21, 2012)

At the moment the most important thing is having a multi core phone. Whether it's quad or dual core isn't that big of a deal compared to single or dual core. 

Remember when computers went from single to dual to quad? The first quads weren't that great compared to the dual cores but the first dual cores coming from single cores were offering much better performance.

I would say go for one of the new dual cores coming out this year rather than one of the quad cores.

The battery life arguments are a load of rubbish and aren't worth paying any attention to.


----------



## devilz666 (Mar 21, 2012)

Buying Quad Core would mean that your phone is future proof. And to say that it won't matter because u don't use any such apps would be wrong because OS performance will be different.

It is though wrong to expect to see 100% gain just because you get twice as many cores but difference will be there as we see more quad phone launches, it is still too soon to judge, there arn't many phones but I am guessing things would be clearer by the end of 2nd quarter? But I am expecting to see as much performance gain from dual to quad as was seen on singe to dual. It should just depend on your budget.


Obviously games will benefit the most from this. 

Why I look forward to see more quads on market is because then dual cores' prices will drop


----------



## tablord (Mar 22, 2012)

The Dogan said:


> At the moment the most important thing is having a multi core phone. Whether it's quad or dual core isn't that big of a deal compared to single or dual core.
> 
> Remember when computers went from single to dual to quad? The first quads weren't that great compared to the dual cores but the first dual cores coming from single cores were offering much better performance.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



I am a 100% with you, Dogan.

And I want to add another example: Walking (Single Core) -> Motorbike (Dual Core) -> Limousine (Quad Core)
The jump from walking to motorbike is much greater than from motorbike to limousine. Sure, the Limousine has some advantages and a greater range of capabilities (e.g. 4-5 vs. 1-2 passengers) and features compared to the motorbike. But in some scenarios, most importantly mileage (battery life) and accelaration (single core performance), the motorbike can easily outperform the limousine.

Coming back to Dogan's comparison, Dual Cores are still more common in todays computer world even with quad and more cores entering the arena many years ago, simply because they fulfill the needs of 95% of customers. What extra does the Quad Core give you in the end? I would rather opt for long battery life and a strong gpu and be happy with a dual core processor for now..


----------



## Won Helder (Mar 22, 2012)

Dual-Core is enough


----------



## KRAZYADROIDMASTER (Mar 22, 2012)

I rather dual battery. LOL 

Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium


----------



## icenight89 (Mar 22, 2012)

Killbynature said:


> For the people who say quad core means less battery are wrong. Nvidia is still using
> A9 architecture and 40 mn. Ti omap5, exynos (5, something), Krait, all beat tegra  3 quad core technology. Ti omap 5 and krait are using 28mn and exynos supposedly using 32mn. All of these processors are a15 which pretty much destroys nvidia a9 architecture. They also use less power voltage and completing the same task. Compared to tegra 3.

Click to collapse



so basically u corrected urself.  Ur comparing nvidia quad core tech to other quad core tech lol, not dual core phones.  And I hate to break it to u but those of us who believe quad core will use more power than dual core are correct. Even the new architecture with smaller manufacturing process cannot YET account for the cirrent 4 processors will draw.  Maybe when the technology matures but not as of yet.  It the first draft consumer release


----------



## bchliu (Mar 22, 2012)

Funny thing is.. all the negative comments on the Quad core is about what people are using it now.. as opposed to 12-18 months time. Have to remember that more cores will give more computing power for other capabilities.

As an Atrix user, I tend to use my phone for much more than what it is as a phone because I plug it into a lapdock and run Linux on it. There are more and more hybrids out there that will merge two technologies together like the Asus Transformer that can convert the device into a bigger one (tablet, laptop etc). In which case, the extra clock cycles and computing power will become rather important. No doubt, this will happen moreso when we move into Jellybean and when MS releases Windows 8 for ARM. 

So realistically for me, buying a dual core is for today - but the quad will be for the next 12-18 months time. There are probably people out there that would disagree and say they change phones every 6 months, but this may not be so true for everyone. 

Remember, when the Dual cores came out, everyone said the same thing - "One core is enough.. dont need two because of battery issues and dont need the capability etc". 18 months down the track, people say the same thing about the dual vs quad cores.

At the end of the day, it is all up to a user preference thing.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

18 months ago, people asked the same question on Single vs Dual core and the people argued on the same matters (performance vs battery life vs whats needed). Now, people argue about Dual vs Quad Core on the same reasons.

What you have to understand is that buying a dual core is buying technology for today. Buying Quad is buying a standard that will last 18 months.

You can argue that the benches apparently have the Krait and OMAPs running faster due to the optimisations of the current OS's. But this will change with new Jellybeans and Windows 8 for ARM later down the track. Not to mention that these companies are also working on Quad cores anyway (despite not being first to the market as per NVidia).


----------



## mohitrocks (Mar 22, 2012)

The battery life might be okay since things like the tegra 3 have an extra core which is the only core used for tasks which require less power (correct me if I'm wrong here)

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium


----------



## adampa1006 (Mar 22, 2012)

Anyone have any links for intelligent discussion on this issue? I am sure that a dual core phone will do 95% of the things I need for the next few years. But, I have an upgrade available and I will be waiting for a quad core phone probably. Might as well have the latest and greatest! 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using XDA Premium App


----------



## Kerosine (Mar 22, 2012)

I have to agree with the arguments presented by bchliu. I'm sure future OS upgrades will be able to fully utilise the cores better and thus lead to improvements in terms of usability. Moreover, as mohitrocks pointed out, some "quad" cores are in fact 5-core devices, with the fifth core being a single core that will, for most of the time, be the actual core running the device since probably 80% of the time you'd be doing tasks that only require one-core processing whilst using phone.

In the light of this 4-PLUS-1 technology, we need some battery comparison tests like the GSMArena testing for instance, only then can we start speaking objectively. Otherwise this all seems to me like the typical arguments against progress as is best evinced by phrases like this one, in 1943.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

I think that pretty much sums it up.


----------



## jimbo.levy (Mar 22, 2012)

If you do get the One X, get the AT&T version (One XL).

Sent from my HTC Rezound with Beats Audio using Tapatalk


----------



## krelvinaz (Mar 22, 2012)

Don't think there at very many options for quad core yet.  Current dual cores are pretty fast.

Via XDA Premium


----------



## OmegaRED^ (Mar 22, 2012)

Quad core has not yet matured. 
P.E.R.I.O.D.

It does not have a big enough *compatible* app database to justify the requirement of 4 cores.

My tiny little 600mhz x10 mini pro can still tango with the big boys for it's pathetic size.

I would not suggest going beyond 3 cores for now.... lets play this one X-box 360 style safe....
Newer 2&3 core systems are more than capable.

Consider if Hex core would be released tomorrow... would you jump at it?

I usually wait to see what device gets the most  updates and hax..
The x10 mini pro... i won in a dumb competition.


----------



## Killbynature (Mar 22, 2012)

icenight89 said:


> so basically u corrected urself.  Ur comparing nvidia quad core tech to other quad core tech lol, not dual core phones.  And I hate to break it to u but those of us who believe quad core will use more power than dual core are correct. Even the new architecture with smaller manufacturing process cannot YET account for the cirrent 4 processors will draw.  Maybe when the technology matures but not as of yet.  It the first draft consumer release

Click to collapse



Im comparing it to what we have. When did I say quadcore will use less battery? Than dual core. Arm architecture is way different than the architecture built for the computers. Most chips in arm are you built for battery life first then performance. 

The only one really making anything thing different is Qualcomm if they would open their hardware data sheets. They would probably take off in the market with developers everywhere. Ti omap and exynos both have fully open platforms. Nvidia is a joke your a desktop graphics card company and your gpu configurations are closed. Good luck using the power of tegra. 

You should all stop buying (I know I am) into Nvidia and Qualcomm products. You want to see CM9 aokp,more optimization for kernels faster to your device only get devices with open software and hardware . 


Games are optimized for arm design. Developers keep in mind that your not on a never ending power supply. So dual core is fine for now and the future. Let be honest unless your testing a new software or testing hardware you are not using your phone for anything moderately productive. 
For those who say but we can run full ubuntu or whatever other os in the future. What device is really going to be efficient at that. Probably one the ASUS pad phone. Because it can turn in to laptop experience. Other than that nothing really. 






Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium


----------



## z33dev33l (Mar 22, 2012)

I wouldn't mind the dual boot. ICS on the best looking phone ever would be nice.


----------



## palad1n (Mar 22, 2012)

I would really prefer longer battery life instead of another two useless cores draining my battery.


----------



## bworley50 (Mar 22, 2012)

I thought quad core was supposed to have better battery life


----------



## yahord (Mar 23, 2012)

It really doesn't matter that much. Dual core is probably the best option right now though


----------



## slapshot30 (Mar 23, 2012)

bworley50 said:


> I thought quad core was supposed to have better battery life

Click to collapse



It is. Many people here are very confused. They think more cores means more power needed so worse battery life which isn't true.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using xda premium


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Killbynature (Mar 23, 2012)

slapshot30 said:


> It is. Many people here are very confused. They think more cores means more power needed so worse battery life which isn't true.
> 
> Sent from my HTC PH39100 using xda premium

Click to collapse




Thats what normal to think but when you look at different architecture is plays a very different part. Andantech explains it very well http://www.anandtech.com/show/5563/qualcomms-snapdragon-s4-krait-vs-nvidias-tegra-3


----------



## paintball23456 (Mar 23, 2012)

YOU ARE ALL NOOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! quad core has better battery life then duel core look around on the internet and you will find that im right



 look it up mate its true hard to explain but basically our cpu in the sgs is single so all the load is on one core i.e 1000mhz on the core at most times so this needs a higher UV to keep the cpu form over heating and it takes more power(ever realized why the sgs has crap battery life?) while a quadcore cpu spreads the load out over the cpu thus lowering the UV drastically i.e 1325 on a singlequadcore a quadcore will have a UV on each core of less than 200 why? cos there is the cpu load spread out over the 4 cores i.e 200mhz on each


----------



## Killbynature (Mar 23, 2012)

paintball23456 said:


> YOU ARE ALL NOOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! quad core has better battery life then duel core look around on the internet and you will find that im right
> 
> 
> 
> look it up mate its true hard to explain but basically our cpu in the sgs is single so all the load is on one core i.e 1000mhz on the core at most times so this needs a higher UV to keep the cpu form over heating and it takes more power(ever realized why the sgs has crap battery life?) while a quadcore cpu spreads the load out over the cpu thus lowering the UV drastically i.e 1325 on a singlequadcore a quadcore will have a UV on each core of less than 200 why? cos there is the cpu load spread out over the 4 cores i.e 200mhz on each

Click to collapse



A dual core 'may' increase battery life over the quad just because its 2 vs 4. All depends what you are going to be doing and how many cores can be utilized. Android doesn't utilize more than two dual cores. This is why Qualcomm Architecture krait which uses krait Asmp is better than Nvdia architecture.


----------



## shadowx360 (Mar 23, 2012)

Killbynature said:


> A dual core 'may' increase battery life over the quad just because its 2 vs 4. All depends what you are going to be doing and how many cores can be utilized. Android doesn't utilize more than two dual cores. This is why Qualcomm Architecture krait which uses krait Asmp is better than Nvdia architecture.

Click to collapse



Right, the 4+1 will have better battery life than a full dual core if you just idle it or run it on the one core most of the time. But running at all four cores, obviously the dual core will have the advantage at the time, though the quad will get the operation done faster sometimes, allowing you to switch back to idle faster.


----------



## icenight89 (Mar 24, 2012)

U guys must be talking abiut not using the phone at all and letting it sit on a desk... I'm talming about I. use operation.  Anyone who says that while playing a game dual core uses more battery than a quadcore is a fool.  Quad core is not yet mature, and is first gen.  Maybe in a couple revisions yes, but as of right now this is not the case.  I don't know about the rest of u, but I'm actually USE my phone, and that fifth core is only active for background tasks.  When my phone has over 4 hours of onscreen time a day, no fifth core is going to give me better battery, not a chance.


----------



## paintball23456 (Mar 24, 2012)

lool you guys will be surprised


----------



## syonatha (Mar 24, 2012)

bdfull3r said:


> Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.
> 
> Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk

Click to collapse



I think you should wait until the next gen phones, which is based on ICS, are available. HTC One series are really promising, in terms battery life and performance.


----------



## playwithonehand (Mar 24, 2012)

I am in the exact same shoes as operator but everyone use phones for different purpose so in your case i recommend you to get NOTE as dual core 720p screen is more than sufficient for u as for me i was abt to pick up a note but decided to wait out for s3 as i cant wait to try out the quad and also all the crazy rumor abt being the best phone yet, wireless charging is going to b super sweet!

Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium


----------



## egg_n_ham (Mar 25, 2012)

i would say, dual core is good enough, Quad is overkill


----------



## dosage1 (Mar 25, 2012)

fast dual core is good enough for now...


----------



## MattyOnXperiaX10 (Mar 25, 2012)

icenight89 said:


> U guys must be talking abiut not using the phone at all and letting it sit on a desk... I'm talming about I. use operation.  Anyone who says that while playing a game dual core uses more battery than a quadcore is a fool.  Quad core is not yet mature, and is first gen.  Maybe in a couple revisions yes, but as of right now this is not the case.  I don't know about the rest of u, but I'm actually USE my phone, and that fifth core is only active for background tasks.  When my phone has over 4 hours of onscreen time a day, no fifth core is going to give me better battery, not a chance.

Click to collapse



You clearly know nothing aboutphones

Ask us any Android Related Question @FeraLabsDevs on Twitter


----------



## MattyOnXperiaX10 (Mar 25, 2012)

dosage1 said:


> fast dual core is good enough for now...

Click to collapse



No its not. Quad core is better because the phone will  be able to run at super low frequencies thus saving battery life. All tegra 3 phones  will be competing with the DroidRazr Maxx in battery life

Ask us any Android Related Question @FeraLabsDevs on Twitter


----------



## galaxys (Mar 25, 2012)

I'm more than than happy with my Sensation's dual core performance...for now!


----------



## sickorwuut (Mar 25, 2012)

*Quad core all the way*

Upgrading to quad core in about april they save more battery life


----------



## BurnRubber90 (Mar 25, 2012)

galaxys said:


> I'm more than than happy with my Sensation's dual core performance...for now!

Click to collapse



Same lol, I can downclock it to 800MHz while having a smooth UI. Not upgrading until Jelly Bean is out. Plus I prefer Qualcomm chips TBH.

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515m using Tapatalk 2 Beta-4


----------



## DPMAce (Mar 25, 2012)

Lol at people going out and getting quad core as soon as it's available. Then 6 months down the line companies start releasing 6 or 8 cores. Sometimes it pays to have some patience and self control.


----------



## tw1ztidmopho (Mar 25, 2012)

Entirely depends on the time frames.. I know that quad is unnecessary atm, but you would be set for quite some time and it would handle multi-tasking like a god.

PS: This captcha sucks


----------



## OmegaRED^ (Mar 25, 2012)

slapshot30 said:


> It is. Many people here are very confused. They think more cores means more power needed so worse battery life which isn't true.
> 
> Sent from my HTC PH39100 using xda premium

Click to collapse



The problem is not when those cores are at idle....
THIS IS WHY I PULL OUT MY HAIR
If i bought a 4 core phone for standby purposes then pigs would fly.

For example.. when Tegra 2 goes idle it disables it's other cores leaving 1 low clocked core enabled. "This is the power saver" it's called a power saving core for a reason.


I still say the same thing... there is no warrant for quad core devices yet.
Not due to power.. but due to app database... 
Do yourself s a favor and wait for the tech to mature better.


----------



## paintball23456 (Mar 25, 2012)

MattyOnXperiaX10 said:


> No its not. Quad core is better because the phone will  be able to run at super low frequencies thus saving battery life. All tegra 3 phones  will be competing with the DroidRazr Maxx in battery life
> 
> Ask us any Android Related Question @FeraLabsDevs on Twitter

Click to collapse



yay im not the only one that knows this


----------



## bangsti (Mar 25, 2012)

Quadcore?

Gesendet von meinem GT-N7000 mit Tapatalk


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## twistedh (Mar 25, 2012)

Like most on XDA, I love a good gadget and if quadcore is the latest trend, then I want in on it. Plus I don't like staying with the same phone for too long but there just hasn't been anything worth me changing my Galaxy S2 for. Until the HTC One X comes out.

The extra cores will help power consumption in the long run so i dont think people should worry about battery drain so more.


----------



## jonathanpeter (Mar 25, 2012)

Kerosine said:


> What about 4-PLUS-1 technology? Any idea whether such systems actually make things run more efficiently using only 1 core (the "ninja" core) for low-end tasks? No idea about this, just floating it to see what news there is out there about this technology.

Click to collapse



You mean Tegra 3??


----------



## dirtywood (Mar 25, 2012)

yes i need them


----------



## Mandrew (Mar 26, 2012)

My plan is to wait and see what happens in the next couple months. There will be plenty of reviews on the web to tell you if quad core is worth it or not. Also, I want to wait until there are lots of options with ICS.


----------



## tw1ztidmopho (Mar 26, 2012)

Mandrew said:


> My plan is to wait and see what happens in the next couple months. There will be plenty of reviews on the web to tell you if quad core is worth it or not. Also, I want to wait until there are lots of options with ICS.

Click to collapse



I just got cm9 ics on my photon... i LOVE it. It is by far the biggest change I have seen between versions. Enjoying it so much had to go off topicfor a min  my bad


----------



## Dyrt Mcgyrt (Mar 26, 2012)

Quad core would rock imo

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using XDA


----------



## HelloDominick (Mar 26, 2012)

hmmmmm.. I'll say Tegra duhh


----------



## MattyOnXperiaX10 (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm getting quad core

Ask us any Android Related Questions @FeraLabsDevs on Twitter (Even If You've Bricked)


----------



## luperez (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm sure power consumption is something that has been optimized if they're ready to embed oncoming cellphones with such technology. People were dubious with the release of dual core phones too. But look where we are now


----------



## TRW93 (Mar 27, 2012)

Definitely go with the 4+1 phone if it's on your service.


----------



## Vadimjke (Mar 27, 2012)

bdfull3r said:


> or should i try and wait for a quad core?

Click to collapse



it might take a while... 

I think dual-core should be enough for smartphones atm


----------



## The Dogan (Mar 27, 2012)

According to some leaked benchmarks of the HTC One X the S4 is doing better than the tegra 3 found in the Transformer Prime.

Link to reference.


----------



## Vadimjke (Mar 27, 2012)

The Dogan said:


> According to some leaked benchmarks of the HTC One X the S4 is doing better than the tegra 3 found in the Transformer Prime.
> 
> Link to reference.

Click to collapse



Yeah, and new Huawei processor probably gonna be even better.

Link to reference


----------



## Censura_Umbra (Mar 27, 2012)

luperez said:


> I'm sure power consumption is something that has been optimized if they're ready to embed oncoming cellphones with such technology. People were dubious with the release of dual core phones too. But look where we are now

Click to collapse



It's true, these same arguments happened back when the Evo 4g was popular. Once we picked up our first dual-core phone, we realized we could never go back (and battery life has actually improved.) The same thing will happen with quad-core phones.

Will I get one right away? No, because dual-core is enough for now.

Even if Quad-core does use more battery, manufacturers will just give you more battery. (Remember when 1500 MaH seemed like a lot??)

So no one worry, and look forward to playing PS3 and 360 Emulators in 2-3 years lol. (or use onlive)


----------



## deepstate (Mar 27, 2012)

I think with a quad you are prepared for the future e.g. in case of os updates which make the cores work more effective.


----------



## K0mic (Mar 27, 2012)

Even double-cores aren't fully supported


----------



## Drzfr3shboialex (Mar 28, 2012)

I would go with a quad-core snaprdragon krait (late 2012 early 2013), or the new exynos 5 series, quad-core

sent from my sense sammich glacier


----------



## 4thMARCH (Mar 28, 2012)

I think dual core is enough


----------



## I Am Marino (Mar 28, 2012)

Snapdragon S4 is where it's at right now in terms of performance and overall use.
Even if quad cores coming out late this year blow that away, the processors we have now will still be relevant in 12 months+

It's not like the jump to quad from dual will be anything substantial like the jump from single to dual.


----------



## Kerosine (Mar 28, 2012)

Yes, the Nvidia Tegra 3.


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## breaderic (Mar 28, 2012)

sigh, still using single core smart phone 
waiting for quad core phones, no more laggy feeling please


----------



## deeken (Mar 28, 2012)

Keep waiting guys, the 8 core cpu phones will be here in a few years.


----------



## sayeed91 (Mar 28, 2012)

KRAZYADROIDMASTER said:


> I rather dual battery. LOL
> 
> Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

Click to collapse



Yes. I'm with this person. Forget quad cores. I want dual batteries lol


Sent from my HTC Desire S using XDA App


----------



## paintball23456 (Mar 28, 2012)

I waiting for the s3


----------



## breaderic (Mar 28, 2012)

sayeed91 said:


> Yes. I'm with this person. Forget quad cores. I want dual batteries lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my HTC Desire S using XDA App

Click to collapse



how about fuel battery? 
or nuclear battery 
idle time > 1yr


----------



## Vadimjke (Mar 28, 2012)

I cant imagine what kind of applications for smartphones might need a quad-core atm


----------



## Kmb470 (Mar 28, 2012)

*Dual Core*

I have a dual core phone (HTC Sensation) and I would say from a stock perspective it helps keep the speed lightning fast with all the crap bloatware the carriers load on the device.

That said, I have an Asus TFP, which is quad core, and you cant really tell the difference unless youre playing a Tegra 3 game in IPS mode.


----------



## Dboy352 (Mar 28, 2012)

I have a dual core phone (Galaxy S II Epic Touch) and the quad core Asus TFP and honestly their isn't a big difference in everyday usage.  They both are very responsive and do everything I want at about the same speed.  Even playing hot pursuit on them both they both play great with no lag.  The difference I saw was in Modern combat 3 playing online in a multiplayer game it lagged every now and then on my phone but not terribly and not at all on the Asus TFP.  As far as a phone it is rumored that the quad cores have a better battery life then the dual core but with my phone on the original battery it lasted me at it's highest 28 hours with moderate usage without a charge.  With the extended battery which is 3500mah it lasted me at the highest 61 hours with moderate usage without a charge.  If you aren't that worried about playing games or anything that would need a huge amount of processing power I say get the dual core 1.2 Ghz or higher and you shouldn't have a problem.


----------



## Killbynature (Mar 28, 2012)

Well you guys need to understand nothing is future proof. Just because you have quad core. The next six months or less their will be even better quad cores. The same with dual core devices. There will always be one SoC better than each other. Every other year. Even computers are not future proof. There are still making better i7 processors. Better graphic processing units. So you would be at the rate android is going three months at best.


----------



## c5satellite2 (Mar 28, 2012)

For the next 6+ months the s4 krait dual core will be the best solution for smartphones.  Initial testing is showing that it outperforms tegra 3 quad-core in several aspects.
Two fast cores will be better suited for phone performance than four slower cores.
S4 krait graphics are said to be better than the tegra 3.


Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA


----------



## jdsinglebarrel (Mar 28, 2012)

I guess I just don't see the need for a quad core phone. Unless you need it, why buy it?


----------



## ElectricBubble (Mar 28, 2012)

bdfull3r said:


> Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.
> 
> Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk

Click to collapse



I go dual save our money.


----------



## Metroidman (Mar 29, 2012)

I really want a Galaxy Nexus International but I have a SGS2 for AT&T

I wish the US would get those awesome International versions.


----------



## Drzfr3shboialex (Mar 29, 2012)

I want a dual/quad core s4 28nm or exynos 5 series 32nm with a 3500mah battery. That's awesome battery 

sent from my sense sammich glacier


----------



## DPMAce (Mar 29, 2012)

I've noticed I buy a new phone with high end specs to brag to people more than anything. So if I don't upgrade to the best everytime,  maybe it's a good thing lol


----------



## Embracce (Mar 29, 2012)

Unless you want huge benchmark scores... go with a dual core.
You'll get longer battery life for one. Plus, the most of the applications out there don't even have the framework for a quad core processor yet.

Dual core for a phone. I'm still stuck on a quad core for my desktop lol.

Unless the android os has a huge framework change where you'll need the other 2 cores to help process, I don't see the need.


----------



## sreza (Mar 29, 2012)

Krait S4 is dual-core 1.5 A15
Tegra 3 is quad-core 1.4+1.3' A9

If you can pull out the very best potential out of all the cores, then the Tegra outperforms Krait. Realistically however, 90% of everything you do on a mobile device runs on apps that aren't designed with multiple cores in mind. Therefore, for the vast majority of real life usage, Krait S4 will outperform Tegra 3.

Also, Tegra cores are designed to run all or nothing. If the app you're using only requires .6 power, the core will run at full 1.4 on it, using more than twice as much battery power as required. Krait S4 adjusts the clock speed dynamically, meaning more efficient battery usage without even factoring the bonus from being A15 instead of A9.

As for me, I'm drooling in anticipation of the Asus Padfone! ^_^


----------



## DPMAce (Mar 29, 2012)

Embracce said:


> Unless you want huge benchmark scores... go with a dual core.
> You'll get longer battery life for one. Plus, the most of the applications out there don't even have the framework for a quad core processor yet.
> 
> Dual core for a phone. I'm still stuck on a quad core for my desktop lol.
> ...

Click to collapse



Yeah really. I don't even have a quad core laptop. Why would I need it in my phone.


----------



## MattyOnXperiaX10 (Mar 29, 2012)

Embracce said:


> Unless you want huge benchmark scores... go with a dual core.
> You'll get longer battery life for one. Plus, the most of the applications out there don't even have the framework for a quad core processor yet.
> 
> Dual core for a phone. I'm still stuck on a quad core for my desktop lol.
> ...

Click to collapse



Another person who doesn't know what they're talking about

Ask us any Android Related Questions @FeraLabsDevs on Twitter (Even If You've Bricked)


----------



## TheSkinnyDrummer (Mar 29, 2012)

MattyOnXperiaX10 said:


> Another person who doesn't know what they're talking about
> 
> Ask us any Android Related Questions @FeraLabsDevs on Twitter (Even If You've Bricked)

Click to collapse



For the rest of us who don't "tweet", please elaborate.

Sent from my coffee pot.


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Killbynature (Mar 29, 2012)

sreza said:


> Krait S4 is dual-core 1.5 A15
> Tegra 3 is quad-core 1.4+1.3' A9
> 
> If you can pull out the very best potential out of all the cores, then the Tegra outperforms Krait. Realistically however, 90% of everything you do on a mobile device runs on apps that aren't designed with multiple cores in mind. Therefore, for the vast majority of real life usage, Krait S4 will outperform Tegra 3.
> ...

Click to collapse



This is right. A standard a9 dual core will always lose out to a15. Being that a15 brings 40% more performance. The price a15 comes with is currently it has a lot of power leakage. Hopefully Qualcomm might of fixed that being that krait is based on a15 not actually an a15 architecture. Keep in mind that krait also dynamically scales voltage unlike most SoC.


----------



## Jigsaff (Mar 29, 2012)

Quad-core: now this is not necessary. But in the future it will be useful.


----------



## tandrews93 (Mar 29, 2012)

Well the quad core will last you longer especially if you are one who gets root and updates manually ... however if you go dual evo 3d .. amaze... or gs2

Sent from my LG-P999 using XDA


----------



## Vazay (Mar 29, 2012)

Jigsaff said:


> Quad-core: now this is not necessary. But in the future it will be useful.

Click to collapse



As always in Android world, buy new device and maybe, just maybe it will work with couple updates

Sent from my MB860 using XDA


----------



## tggfest (Mar 29, 2012)

> Unless you want huge benchmark scores... go with a dual core.
> You'll get longer battery life for one. Plus, the most of the applications out there don't even have the framework for a quad core processor yet.
> 
> Dual core for a phone. I'm still stuck on a quad core for my desktop lol.
> ...

Click to collapse



my laptop is still dual core why the heck i need a quad core phone


----------



## sreza (Mar 29, 2012)

Jigsaff said:


> Quad-core: now this is not necessary. But in the future it will be useful.

Click to collapse



I'm sorry, but it won't. Look at the pc market for reference as to the use of multiple cores. Only very high-end gaming or graphical publishing, neither of which I would want to do on my phone.

Most programs can run on any core in a system, *but 99% of them can only run on 1 core at a time.* They are also unlikely to add multi-core processing to those apps, not only because the apps don't need that much processing power, but  also because the vast majority of users aren't going to get a quad-core phone anytime soon. 

_"Why spend time and money developing a frivolous ability to multi-process an app that takes less than 1/4 a core's processing power in the first place to satisfy a very small minority of android users that won't see any visible difference anyway?"_ is the question all non-HD gaming developers on the Market are asking themselves as we speak.

The new dual cores are A15, versus Tegra 3 which is only A9. An A15 chip is 40% stronger at the same clock speed. Tegra 3's strongest core is clocked at 1.4, Krait S4's strongest core is 1.5.

1.5 vs 1.4 doesn't seem like much of a difference, but don't forget to adjust the numbers because Krait is A15! An A9 1.4 processor is what we were overclocking our Tegra 2 cores to at this time last year! Relativistically,* consider it comparing a 1.4 core to a 2.1 core. *



As far as I'm concerned, the only reason they have for making quad-core chips in the mobile market is to take advantage of those who fuel their self-esteem by the specs on their device (e-peen). And the sad thing is, The dual core A15's will outperform the quad-cores the vast majority of the time anyway!

tl,dr: 99% of developers won't make their apps multi-core capable, HD gaming is the only group that will. Therefore, your device will be faster and more efficient if you use a dual core A15 chip like the Krait S4 instead of the quad core Tegra 3 chip. *Quad-core processing is not future-proofing.* Future-proofing is to get a stronger chip, than just 1 with more weak cores.


----------



## Jack_Cerver (Mar 30, 2012)

Stick with the dual core because it has been around longer wich usually means better builds for the phones. And like many others said most games/apps won't use all the cores


----------



## ianxnai (Mar 31, 2012)

Still dual core


----------



## pong9999 (Mar 31, 2012)

I would be more concerned about power consumption


----------



## c5satellite2 (Mar 31, 2012)

S4 Krait is testing at almost twice the performance of Tegra 3

http://www.android.net/forum/androi...ed-snapdragon-s4-krait-crushes-tegra-3-a.html

Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA


----------



## eskimo99 (Mar 31, 2012)

dual core like Nexus is great because it gets update every time


----------



## H-Cim (Mar 31, 2012)

I'd go for the Quad-Core by far. 

It costs a bit more right now but you'll last a lot longer before having to buy a new phone. Android 5.0 will probably be optimized for quad-core. Imo it would be a bad choice to buy a dual-core right now!


----------



## Akiainavas (Mar 31, 2012)

It's always better if you have more power, and quad-core will give you that. Also 4 cores mean that you won't need an upgrade a bit longer.
But...
You won't actually use those 4 cores, and battery life will probably be worse.

It looks like this ( by 2x i don't mean 100% more, just "more" )

2x cost + 2x power + 2x future proof + battery life
vs.
cost + power + future proof + 2x battery life ( not always the case with battery )

You do the math.


----------



## castano22 (Mar 31, 2012)

No point on getting a quad core phone if you're not going to game on it. Stick with dual core they have been around longer so less worries of bugs and all that


----------



## lamborg (Mar 31, 2012)

dual of the 2. Actually it depends on your needs, what do you use your phone for.


----------



## Temetka (Mar 31, 2012)

I am pretty happy with my captivate even though it is a sibgle core phone  ut it is oc'd to 1.2ghz. When I am eligible for an upgrade in 12 months I will probably get the note. It may not be the shiniest lhone in a year, but I really like it.

Sent from my ThinkPad Tablet using xda premium


----------



## jthatch12 (Mar 31, 2012)

bdfull3r said:


> Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.
> 
> Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk

Click to collapse



Coming from the view of an electrical engineer.  There is literally no reason to have quad core!  There are many other factors to consider when comparing the performance of CPUs, like the clock rate and width of the CPU's data bus, the latency of the memory, and the cache architecture.



EDIT:  Side note, not until a few year ago did quad core processors come up for computers.  Most laptops arw still dual core, mine has dual core 2.4 GHz processors and it runs MATLAB like a champ.   

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-4


----------



## jthatch12 (Mar 31, 2012)

Akiainavas said:


> It's always better if you have more power, and quad-core will give you that. Also 4 cores mean that you won't need an upgrade a bit longer.
> But...
> You won't actually use those 4 cores, and battery life will probably be worse.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Why do you need that much power in a phone? Unless you plan on running Ubuntu via dock, it's unnecessary. Are you doing FFT and signal processing with your cell phone? I doubt it...

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-4


----------



## carbonize (Mar 31, 2012)

As others have said dual core is more than fast enough for nearly all of your needs. The only thing that would benefit from quad core would be graphically rich 3D games or serious multitasking which I'm sure Android doesn't actually support anyway.


----------



## DPMAce (Mar 31, 2012)

How does a dual core cpu on android compare to the cpu on a netbook? 

I'm sure the dual core android blows the netbook away. Now  I just want android to be able to do everything windows can do


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## MattyOnXperiaX10 (Mar 31, 2012)

DPMAce said:


> How does a dual core cpu on android compare to the cpu on a netbook?
> 
> I'm sure the dual core android blows the netbook away. Now  I just want android to be able to do everything windows can do

Click to collapse



You can get windows 7 on Android tablets anyway


----------



## norpan111 (Mar 31, 2012)

DPMAce said:


> How does a dual core cpu on android compare to the cpu on a netbook?
> 
> I'm sure the dual core android blows the netbook away. Now  I just want android to be able to do everything windows can do

Click to collapse



They are small processors for phones, your dual core NetBook eats it for breakfast

Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium


----------



## PSP-86 (Mar 31, 2012)

I think that Quad is too much for a smartphone. The software should be improved, not optimized.


----------



## DPMAce (Mar 31, 2012)

norpan111 said:


> They are small processors for phones, your dual core NetBook eats it for breakfast
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium

Click to collapse



Well I know the dual core android cpu is powerful because it can play games like dead space, and all the other gameloft games, etc.

Not sure how well a netbook could play those games.  But on a netbook, I can edit all my word documents perfectly, and streaming my class lectures perfectly.  I can't do this so well on my android tablet.  Probably more software related than anything.

But my point is it would be nice to be able to do some real work on my tablet for a change.  Especially if it has a quad core!!


----------



## xMoKax (Apr 1, 2012)

Dual core is just as good.

I read somewhere that the Galaxy S3 is going to have a Dual Core, but will be as good as a Quad-Core. Something about the Cortex A15 or something.


----------



## sreza (Apr 1, 2012)

Honestly... Every time someone says that buying a quad-core future-proofs your phone makes me want to do a -facepalm- the size of Texas....

Quad-cores have weak cores! Tegra 3 is an *A9* where the strongest core is 1.4. In comparison, Krait S4 is an *A15* where both cores are 1.5. *In real life testing, Krait S4 gives twice the performance of Tegra 3.*

*99% of everything you do on your phone only needs 1 core.* Developers won't bother to make their apps multi-core capable because it won't improve the performance at all! And even if Android 5.0 is optimized for multiple cores, only HD gaming will see any improvement from it.

*It's like buying your grandmother a Ferrari.* Quad-cores have all this "potential" that they're trying to convince you of so you go out and buy their product. But like your grandmother, who'll never try to push past 60 in her Ferrari, a mobile device simply won't see the use of a quad-core engine.

*One possible exception.* One single possible use of quad-cores in everyday phone use is battery power. Specifically, A fully optimized OS can split all workload between all the cores, dividing your battery consumption between them. So a single core device running at 100% uses 4 times the battery power of a quad-core device running at 25% on all cores. *But Tegra 3 doesn't support this!* Tegra 3 cores run all or nothing, it's just the way they're designed. Krait, on the other hand, has dynamic voltage, so they can actually do this to save battery power!

If I ever get a quad-core device, it will _never_ be a Tegra core. The only possible situation where having a quad-core CPU on your phone makes actual sense, is if Krait makes a quad-core version of their flagship CPU. 

This conversation should *not* be on the benefits of quad-core vs. dual-core. While informative, that conversation would have no real world benefit to those looking to buy a new phone. What is really relevant information however, is a comparison between the Krait S4 chip and the Tegra 3 chip. It does no good to make vague references to the "potential" of quad-core devices, without considering what it is we will actually have in our hands in the end.

*You can brag all you want about how many cores you have in your Tegra 3 device, but it won't change the fact that my Padfone running Krait S4 will still run miles around it, no matter how much you try to "optimize" that poorly designed Tegra 3 chip. Four sedans will never be as fast as two Lamborghinis.*


----------



## cloferba (Apr 1, 2012)

it depends on if the software is optimized to use the full cpu or not


----------



## I Am Marino (Apr 1, 2012)

sreza said:


> Honestly... Every time someone says that buying a quad-core future-proofs your phone makes me want to do a -facepalm- the size of Texas....
> 
> Quad-cores have weak cores! Tegra 3 is an *A9* where the strongest core is 1.4. In comparison, Krait S4 is an *A15* where both cores are 1.5. *In real life testing, Krait S4 gives twice the performance of Tegra 3.*
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Couldn't have said it any better myself.


----------



## freezer2k (Apr 1, 2012)

I think it depends a lot on what you actually intend to do with your device, besides having a high benchmark score 


I flashed ICS on my Motorola Defy yesterday, and it runs ok. Once the HW-acceleration is implemented 100%, i'm pretty sure it will run just fine for a lot of standard apps.

1GHz/512MB of RAM and a decent GPU go a long way imho.


----------



## anITee (Apr 1, 2012)

*Not nesessary*

I really don't think that the number of cores matters much. May the optimization of the operating system is more important.


----------



## Dark lord me (Apr 1, 2012)

Frankly my view is if you look at one Ghz with 510 ram devices they can still be pretty smooth it is all about how optimized they are. My phone has an OMAP 4460 and well it's smooth but nothing special. My tablet has a tegra 2 (ugh) that is just... no. 

Nvidia well they usually are the first but they are so weak that as soon as a competitor comes out no one uses them any more.

I really look forward to seeing a large amount of S4 devices as well as the S5 and OMAP 5 devices, those will be extremely powerful and should be great on battery.


----------



## prince9030 (Apr 2, 2012)

get the note i heard nothing but good things about it but to bad its with a horrible carrier


----------



## Temetka (Apr 2, 2012)

Since I am stuck with AT&T i've been looking at the Galaxy S2 or the Note. I'd have to save my pennies for the note whereas I can afford the S2. Both are great phones and I am partial towards Samsung devices. I've been  uying their gear for almost 20 years and it has never let me down.

Sent from my ThinkPad Tablet using xda premium


----------



## sreza (Apr 2, 2012)

You should wait for Cortex A15 phones to come out. Look for the Krait S4 processor. Padfone is coming out this month!


----------



## carbonize (Apr 2, 2012)

If you really want a fast phone wait for the Huawei Ascend D Quad. It comes with Huawei's own quad core CPU and apparently has a 16 core GPU :-/



> Yu also said that the Ascend D Quad is much faster, too- 20 percent to 30 percent faster, in fact, than one running the Tegra 3.

Click to collapse



http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57385358-94/huawei-our-ascend-d-quad-is-worlds-fastest-smartphone/


----------



## sreza (Apr 2, 2012)

carbonize said:


> If you really want a fast phone wait for the Huawei Ascend D Quad. It comes with Huawei's own quad core CPU and apparently has a 16 core GPU :-/
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57385358-94/huawei-our-ascend-d-quad-is-worlds-fastest-smartphone/

Click to collapse



20-30% faster than Tegra 3 isn't really saying much. Krait S4 is benchmarking at double Tegra 3.


----------



## hf.henri (Apr 2, 2012)

Neither the desktop programs are well optimized for quadcore.
I think unnecessary quadcore today. For that we need as much performance?
I think I prefer a longer lasting battery.


----------



## tony2003111 (Apr 2, 2012)

Vote for dual core for better Life time


----------



## freezer2k (Apr 2, 2012)

Yes,

I think we reached a point with smartphones (just like with PCs a few years ago) where more cores/MHz won't increase performance noticable for most standard apps. 

And do you want to compile complex programs on your smartphone? I feel the urge to buy a new phone, just to have it. But if i think about it logically, it just seems like a waste of money, since i won't use the extra speed in 99% of my usage patterns.


----------



## Killbynature (Apr 2, 2012)

Just to let you know engadget reviewed the htc one s and reviewed the htc one x. They said the htc one s battery life outlasted the one x. Also got better performance out the dual core krait than the tegra 3 quadcore version.


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## tjtj4444 (Apr 2, 2012)

Killbynature said:


> Just to let you know engadget reviewed the htc one s and reviewed the htc one x. They said the htc one s battery life outlasted the one x. Also got better performance out the dual core krait than the tegra 3 quadcore version.

Click to collapse



Just as  expected. I hope this gets more attention, we need more powerful cores (per GHz), not more cores!!
It is different on PC's, where a modern CPU core is more or less so powerful it can be, so increasing number of cores is the best thing to do. But we're far away from such powerful cores on smartphones.


----------



## jodiskett (Apr 2, 2012)

AK-shay said:


> quad core for sure..
> for better performance!

Click to collapse



Quad core, but with wonderful battery life gestion if not no autonomy and battery drain


----------



## goncalosantos (Apr 2, 2012)

*Performance*



AK-shay said:


> quad core for sure..
> for better performance!

Click to collapse



Quad core is good to battery.


----------



## sreza (Apr 2, 2012)

-facepalm- Why don't people ever bother reading before posting?

I'll say it again, and if anyone needs more details look up my other posts. 

In this current generation, *dual-core Krait S4 outperforms Tegra 3 in every way.*

Better battery life, faster speeds, dynamic voltage, A15 vs A9, more future-proof!

Please, learn about the science behind these chips and consider the current software environment before airing your ignorance for all to see. In principle, *with all other factors being the same, and in an environment not hostile to multiple cores*, then and only then is a quad-core phone viable.

Until such a day comes, always go with the dual-core Krait or Exynos chipset. Because frankly, *Tegra 3 was outdated the day it was released.*

Many of you keep assuming that quad-core vs dual-core is essentially a trade-off between performance and battery life. *This is not true.* Dual-core Krait S4 has the edge in -both-. 

There is literally no viable reason to prefer the Tegra 3 over the Krait S4, and thus, no reason to get a quad-core Tegra 3 over dual-core Krait S4.


----------



## DsturbD (Apr 2, 2012)

sreza said:


> Honestly... Every time someone says that buying a quad-core future-proofs your phone makes me want to do a -facepalm- the size of Texas....
> 
> Quad-cores have weak cores! Tegra 3 is an *A9* where the strongest core is 1.4. In comparison, Krait S4 is an *A15* where both cores are 1.5. *In real life testing, Krait S4 gives twice the performance of Tegra 3.*
> 
> ...

Click to collapse





sreza said:


> -facepalm- Why don't people ever bother reading before posting?
> 
> I'll say it again, and if anyone needs more details look up my other posts.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



hopefully people will start reading your explanation which is spot on. could not agree more with you on this. you are exactly right

when the tegra 3 was announced there was only one game for it which was written by nvidia themselves to show off their shiny new processor...but right now that is probably THE ONLY app that uses a quad-core chip

you are not "future proofing" your phone by getting a quad-core chip. you are only wasting your money UNLESS you know that you will be using apps that are multi-core aware or that developers will be updating their apps to be multi-core aware, which right now, i am sure they aren't


----------



## marvvv (Apr 2, 2012)

Go for the Dual-core, if you want to do a long term investment go for the Quad-core. I don't see the point of Quad-core smartphones at this time in the market. Not many apps utilise it yet.


----------



## c5satellite2 (Apr 2, 2012)

Dual core S4 Krait is crushing quad core tegra 3!

Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA


----------



## adelmundo (Apr 3, 2012)

After reading the Engadget reviews of the new HTC phones, looks like the US version of the HTC One X may be the way to go if you want to go with HTC.  Best of both worlds with the bigger screen, LTE, bigger battery and the S4 dual core Krait.  I might tell my wife to get that phone if it comes out on Sprint when her upgrade comes up on her Evo 4G.  Now I can't wait to see how Samsung's new Exynos processors will look on the GS3 when that us released. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 Samsung Galaxy Note "Go big or go home" using XDA app


----------



## wolfen69 (Apr 3, 2012)

inteller said:


> How about getting a device that just does the things you do everyday quickly?

Click to collapse



Exactly. I'm more than happy with my single core Infuse. Screen size is more important to me than anything else. I'm not a gamer, and my phone is capable of doing a few things at once.

Just get what is right for you. If you don't need 30 things running at the same time, or are not a hard core gamer, I don't think it matters much. And besides, if you're a hard core gamer, why are you choosing a phone for that? Use a console or PC to get your fix.


----------



## Kaizneight (Apr 3, 2012)

To me, dual core is more than enough to do all my daily chores using phone, playing, watching movies online, browsing, etc2..Yes, quad core may be faster, but dual core is more than enough for now, though i favor screen size+battery capacity though XD


----------



## abel.jacob (Apr 3, 2012)

dual great !
quad ! Awesome !


----------



## vampir4997 (Apr 4, 2012)

abel.jacob said:


> dual great !
> quad ! Awesome !

Click to collapse



Dont take this the wrong way, but have you read through this thread at all?  I was all about tegra 3 until a few people made some really good points. We all assume more is better but apparently that is not the case beyween s4 and tegra3. 

Sent from my PG06100 using xda premium


----------



## remat (Apr 4, 2012)

a quad-core cpu does not use more power than a dual-core because cores can be set in idle mode and do not use battery. on the other side a quad core is not faster than a dual core because an app can not run automatically on different cores. it has to be programmed for multi-cores (e.g. different threads for AI, gameplay, pyhsics).

A multi core system is faster in multitasking - different programs on different cores. Currently i'm on an ICS Costum ROM on my Desire and the new ICS Multitasking is working quite well. So i do not the the need in a quad core system.

But, as always - the bigger the better? Maybe its nice to tell your friends you've got a quad core proc. in your device


----------



## sreza (Apr 4, 2012)

remat said:


> a quad-core cpu does not use more power than a dual-core because cores can be set in idle mode and do not use battery. on the other side a quad core is not faster than a dual core because an app can not run automatically on different cores. it has to be programmed for multi-cores (e.g. different threads for AI, gameplay, pyhsics).
> 
> A multi core system is faster in multitasking - different programs on different cores. Currently i'm on an ICS Costum ROM on my Desire and the new ICS Multitasking is working quite well. So i do not the the need in a quad core system.
> 
> But, as always - the bigger the better? Maybe its nice to tell your friends you've got a quad core proc. in your device

Click to collapse



What you say is true only in the case where all individual cores on both chipsets are exactly identical. However, not all cores are built alike. See my thread on "The Myth of the Quad-Core Upgrade" for detailed information on why in this current lineup of smartphones it's better to go for the dual-core devices.


----------



## spyro2 (Apr 4, 2012)

I have no idea why the 'cores' issue crops up again and again. Its the new version of the old MOAR MHz conversations of old.

If you have one core thats fast enough, your phone will be fast.

If you have 500 cores that arent up to the job, or an infinite number of ok-ish cores and a single-threaded CPU intensive process, your phone will be dog slow.

At the end of the day, decide what you want the phone to do. find a phone that does it as fast as YOU WANT IT TO for as little money as YOU WANT IT TO, and you wil be happy.

Buy your phone because it has moar cores than your mates or moar MHz, and you will either waste your money, or buy a phone you didnt want / like / need.


----------



## ks09h (Apr 4, 2012)

How big is the OP's ego?

If you want to be able to know you got the latest and greatest, then wait a few weeks for the quads to come out.

The quad cores will have better battery life, better graphics, more capabilities, probably better overall hardware, and will have the new Ice Cream OS if you go Android.

However, if money is an issue or you don't care about having the best available phone, then go with the dual core.

But either way you may want to wait until the quads come out because that will drive the dual-core prices into the dirt-cheap bargain bin.


----------



## spyro2 (Apr 4, 2012)

Nail, head, hit the on.


----------



## wbb1 (Apr 4, 2012)

dual core 

no app needs as much power for quadcore at the moment it will take up battery and may heat up the phone, or require bulkier design.

until apps require it dualcore should be fine.


----------



## ktmills (Apr 4, 2012)

sreza said:


> I'm sorry, but it won't. Look at the pc market for reference as to the use of multiple cores. Only very high-end gaming or graphical publishing, neither of which I would want to do on my phone.
> 
> Most programs can run on any core in a system, *but 99% of them can only run on 1 core at a time.* They are also unlikely to add multi-core processing to those apps, not only because the apps don't need that much processing power, but  also because the vast majority of users aren't going to get a quad-core phone anytime soon.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse




In order to not misinform readers.  Krait is NOT an A15.  Krait is NOT based on an A15. Krait is also not an A9/A8 or based of either of these as well.  Krait is Qualcomm's designed processor based off the ARM V7 spec.


----------



## Killbynature (Apr 5, 2012)

ktmills said:


> In order to not misinform readers.  Krait is NOT an A15.  Krait is NOT based on an A15. Krait is also not an A9/A8 or based of either of these as well.  Krait is Qualcomm's designed processor based off the ARM V7 spec.

Click to collapse



Krait is its own architecture based on a15. They even said this themselves. Even anandtech said it themselves when they got the mdp for it. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4940/qualcomm-new-snapdragon-s4-msm8960-krait-architecture

Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Sydus8159 (Apr 5, 2012)

I want a quad core, but Im a little worried about the battery life, as dual core seems already abysmal


----------



## chaki- (Apr 5, 2012)

I have one core 1,5Ghz and yet i can walk, talk, drink, eat and b*ng the ladys. 
Consider that the ICS is optimized for dualcore i think that would be wise to wait for next generation. Hell, what's the point to have "zilion" cores with 1,6-1,8Ghz and 1GB Ram? With 2,5Ghz and 2GB Ram the quadcore will be a nice beauty! S4 quadcore for late 2012 and begin 2013 smartphones will be 2-2,5Ghz. So i will wait a little longer and get a real future phone. Hope though, they solve by that time that annoying battery problem


----------



## DPMAce (Apr 5, 2012)

quad core is already old.   I'll wait for the 8 cores


----------



## NanoNoodle (Apr 5, 2012)

Quad core is very nice and dual core is also nice. In my opinion, I would but a dual core because I think dual is good enough to run everything that I do on my phone.


----------



## vampir4997 (Apr 5, 2012)

DPMAce said:


> quad core is already old.   I'll wait for the 8 cores

Click to collapse



Dos ocho lol

Sent from my PG06100 using xda premium


----------



## tzt85 (Apr 5, 2012)

I'd say dual core. 

Even on the desktop a lot of code is barely parallelized at all and I can't imagine it being any better on mobile. Having more than one core is neat as it prevents a single badly behaving application from choking the system, but more than that is probably just a waste with current software.

Looking a few years ahead, having lots of very power efficient cores might be neat for augmented reality -style stuff, though. Realtime image recognition that actually works, and all that.


----------



## narta (Apr 5, 2012)

Quad core Arm Cortex15 architecture @28nm on High K fabrication

Just like the Exynos 5250


----------



## htc fan89 (Apr 5, 2012)

Quad-core with DDR4 memory now that be awesome


----------



## ktmills (Apr 5, 2012)

Killbynature said:


> Krait is its own architecture based on a15. They even said this themselves. Even anandtech said it themselves when they got the mdp for it.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium

Click to collapse



Since I am actually on the Krait design team, I know first hand that Krait is not based off A15, it is merely meant to be competitive with it and in order to do so has similar micro architectural design features that are the same.  These design features are pretty much standard to any processor wanting to achieve a higher IPC.


----------



## s131452067 (Apr 6, 2012)

我會告訴你是雙核心
四核心可能對你來講只是浪費錢


----------



## panther-'black' (Apr 6, 2012)

We need quad-core!
For more fantastic games(?)
LOL

Sent from my Nexus S MIUI v4
pantherMIUI!


----------



## Djojorahardjo (Apr 6, 2012)

Something new is always interesting..quadcore?absolutely yes

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5


----------



## nieohl (Apr 6, 2012)

Well.. i would say, if you go to SIII, or any other quad core.. you can switch to any launcher you want. considering that SIII has 1.5gb ram! TSF Shell, SPB Shell, and any other launcher + All Tegra, high end games multitask! well, certainly not like the PC which you could see them all at once, but still really good choice, but we still have different opinions.


----------



## danw87 (Apr 6, 2012)

im loving my one x the quad core is amazing makes my desire look like its going backwards lol. But as most will know when playing games and they r very impressive to play battery life isnt that great and even when i had it charging off my lappy it told me off as the phone was using more power than the lappy could give it lol. But defo quad core


----------



## SamsungGalaxySII. (Apr 6, 2012)

The era of quad core phones is not now
it is the era of dual core phones
If you buy a quad core phone then yes you will have higher benchmarks and maybe a better performance, but is is negilible to dual core phones, as there are other hardware components holding quadcore back so i would wait


----------



## Hassan-aka-PanGa (Apr 6, 2012)

quad core all the way. News are coming up that SGS3 will be released. You should wait till it gets released


----------



## curl2k1 (Apr 6, 2012)

Dual Core A15s > Quad Core A9s > Dual Core A9s > most everything else


----------



## satrax6 (Apr 6, 2012)

I would go with the quad core because you will be able to handle future apps!


----------



## 1337 is leet (Apr 6, 2012)

Dude go with a duo, A quad will wreck your battery life.


----------



## fosics (Apr 7, 2012)

For better gaming experiences, quad core is the right pick, but the dual cores around work just fine for the normal operations one asks to a smart phone today. The rest is advertisng, most companies would be out of bussiness. I read Samsung just received 10 million pre orders for S III


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## exb0 (Apr 7, 2012)

fosics said:


> For better gaming experiences, quad core is the right pick, but the dual cores around work just fine for the normal operations one asks to a smart phone today. The rest is advertisng, most companies would be out of bussiness. I read Samsung just received 10 million pre orders for S III

Click to collapse



I doubt it. What application right now requires quad core? If there is then the developers are stupid. People are barely getting the power out of dual core and we're talking about quad? 

Quad core is a hype for now. A race, to see who can get it first. Maybe a few months or maybe next year, the quad core will actually be used.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium


----------



## KyraOfFire (Apr 7, 2012)

fosics said:


> For better gaming experiences, quad core is the right pick, but the dual cores around work just fine for the normal operations one asks to a smart phone today. The rest is advertisng, most companies would be out of bussiness. I read Samsung just received 10 million pre orders for S III

Click to collapse



what does gaming experience have to do with quadcore CPU? 

And the 10m pre-orders is total BS, it takes 5 months to sell 10 millions SGSII. Well, if you're the guy think 4 core CPU improve gaming experience, it sounds about right that you believe in those stupid rumors.


----------



## Elviscosho (Apr 7, 2012)

dual core i think´s better


----------



## Oliver94 (Apr 7, 2012)

It depends of what are you going to use.


----------



## fbaez92 (Apr 7, 2012)

quad core


----------



## MultiLockOn (Apr 7, 2012)

KyraOfFire said:


> what does gaming experience have to do with quadcore CPU?
> 
> And the 10m pre-orders is total BS, it takes 5 months to sell 10 millions SGSII. Well, if you're the guy think 4 core CPU improve gaming experience, it sounds about right that you believe in those stupid rumors.

Click to collapse



Well, a GPU could push pixels to the CPU for extra rendering power, which is unnatural but not unheard of.....I think. I'm pretty sure this is what the Tegra 3 does to make up for it's godsend awful GPU....unless I'm horribly mistaken. But I don't think I am. Pretty sure this is what the PS3 does as well.


----------



## SBGS-FTW (Apr 7, 2012)

Kerosine said:


> What about 4-PLUS-1 technology? Any idea whether such systems actually make things run more efficiently using only 1 core (the "ninja" core) for low-end tasks? No idea about this, just floating it to see what news there is out there about this technology.

Click to collapse



The "Ninja Core" only handles processes operating at 500 MHz and below. 

Look up NVidia's White Paper on vSMP (Can't post links yet  )


----------



## x000x (Apr 7, 2012)

quad


----------



## alan_qiu (Apr 7, 2012)

Is quad core double ability than dual core?


----------



## juanjose780 (Apr 7, 2012)

quad core


----------



## evolsam (Apr 7, 2012)

I don't get why people are so obsessed with it. Dual or quad? Does it really matter? If quad means no battery life, with small all-round improvements?


----------



## grant190492 (Apr 7, 2012)

if you have the ability to charge your device most of the day, the quad core is the way to go... there is no issue with me putting my phone in its dock in the car, or on charge at work, or on charge in the house... most of us have the ability to charge our phones but don't...

i do however agree that processor technology is advancing quicker than battery technology, and there will come a time where battery life is so bad people will opt for smaller processors because they don't need 32 billion tasks running at once...

Quad Core for me


----------



## Asniper (Apr 7, 2012)

four + one would my choice, else just a simple dual core.


----------



## grant190492 (Apr 7, 2012)

Asniper said:


> four + one would my choice, else just a simple dual core.

Click to collapse



not a bad idea there


----------



## shad0wboss (Apr 7, 2012)

Well a great example of this situation can be:

1. Intel i5 mobility one (dual core with 4 threads) vs AMD phenom x4 900 series where dual core i5 outperforms the amd phenom

2. In PCs i3 sandy birdge outperforms old amd phenom x4 and athlon x4 processors which are quadcores when i3 is just a dual core...

so i think it depend on the technology and whether that dual core has multiple threads for each core...


----------



## mike21pr (Apr 7, 2012)

Gimme a break... Its the single vs dual core debate all over again. Is dual core enough? Sure, just like single core was back then, but denying that cuad core is where this market is heading and sticking to dual core just because its "good enough" is kinda funny. Now I understand choosing a dual core A15 vs a cuad core A9, but what happens when a cuad core A15 is released later this year? Tegra 3 was to market first thus not at its full glory as future cuads will be, but when manufacturers make a up to date quad, its gonna make dual core cpus look like crap. Apps and games will sure to follow, but I rather have extra horsepower even if i dont need it than "just enough" and wish i had more later on

Just my 2 cents

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2 Beta-6


----------



## ray3andrei (Apr 7, 2012)

sreza said:


> -facepalm- Why don't people ever bother reading before posting?
> 
> I'll say it again, and if anyone needs more details look up my other posts.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Not really... show me proof... the companion core in the tegra 3 handles everything when your phone is locked.. while the s4 uses both core at Lowe frequency and in terms of performance I get 12000 on quadrant(CPU) on my transformer prime, while the s4 gets 8000 sorry tegra 3 is indeed better.. but it will come to an end

Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3


----------



## LostLoon151 (Apr 7, 2012)

for now, i think dual core will be enough.  especially since the question from the OP stated that he's not that into gaming.

for a phone, i'd stick with dual core, for another year or so.  give some time for the OS and the battery to catch up with processors, and the usefulness of a quad core will be more obvious.

ultimately, like it's been said before, most of the decision will come down to, what do you plan on using your phone for, and how much access do you have to a charger, to keep your phone going, throughout the day.

i've been looking to upgrade my phone, and having seen what's out there, and what's coming out quickly, i'll stick to dual core, or hold off my upgrade, until it's more feasible for quad core.

i do minimal gaming, but sometimes, it'd be really nice to have some extra power.  though, i have access and time to charge my phone fairly often


----------



## ray3andrei (Apr 7, 2012)

To me what seems to honestly beat both is the omap 5430.. but yeah...

Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3


----------



## itsjustmeagain (Apr 7, 2012)

A mobile phone is a tool - not only a toy.
From my point of view there are very different and usefull things we can do with it. The most unimportant is gaming.

I really don't want to charge battery once a day. And if that can be achieved with single core cpu then I want single core.
It's about time that manufacturers care about batteries if we don't want to charge every 2 hours with their BS eight core cpu tamagotchis in the future.


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## sreza (Apr 7, 2012)

itsjustmeagain said:


> A mobile phone is a tool - not only a toy.
> From my point of view there are very different and usefull things we can do with it. The most unimportant is gaming.
> 
> I really don't want to charge battery once a day. And if that can be achieved with single core cpu then I want single core.
> It's about time that manufacturers care about batteries if we don't want to charge every 2 hours with their BS eight core cpu tamagotchis.

Click to collapse



There's a pretty easy solution, buy a Padfone. 9 times a 1500 mAh battery with both accessories, and the Krait chip uses half the battery power of the Tegra 3 to do double the work.


----------



## sreza (Apr 8, 2012)

ray3andrei said:


> Not really... show me proof... the companion core in the tegra 3 handles everything when your phone is locked.. while the s4 uses both core at Lowe frequency and in terms of performance I get 12000 on quadrant(CPU) on my transformer prime, while the s4 gets 8000 sorry tegra 3 is indeed better.. but it will come to an end
> 
> Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3

Click to collapse



http://www.anandtech.com/show/5563/qualcomms-snapdragon-s4-krait-vs-nvidias-tegra-3

Krait is better on every test, save equal on browsermarks, 50% faster on OS operations. 28 nm build means it'll do all that at at least 40% less battery cost than Tegra 3. It also has an integrated LTE modem, saving even more power. Tegra's ninja core is not a good feature, it'll require separate optimization on the app side of things to work right, and the dynamic voltage on Krait gives an equivalent effect regardless. 

See my other thread on this topic: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1579299

Edit: Also, Krait scores slightly less than 5000 on Quadrant, Tegra 3 doesn't break 4000.


----------



## KingKuba13 (Apr 8, 2012)

sreza said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5563/qualcomms-snapdragon-s4-krait-vs-nvidias-tegra-3
> 
> Krait is better on every test, save equal on browsermarks, 50% faster on OS operations. 28 nm build means it'll do all that at at least 40% less battery cost than Tegra 3. It also has an integrated LTE modem, saving even more power. Tegra's ninja core is not a good feature, it'll require separate optimization on the app side of things to work right, and the dynamic voltage on Krait gives an equivalent effect regardless.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Wrong. Tegra 3 already did 5000 on Quadrant.


----------



## stephen2282 (Apr 8, 2012)

Dual-core if u just do basic things on ur phone eg. web browsing, social networking, light games

Quad-core if u want eg. hardcore games, benchmark tests , future optimization~~

Dual-core for the regular, quad-core for the safe side. 

And dun worry bout battery life. quad core r rly optimized to have btr battery life on standby n while using they change their processing power to suit ur usage. 

Cheers


----------



## tjtj4444 (Apr 8, 2012)

stephen2282 said:


> Dual-core if u just do basic things on ur phone eg. web browsing, social networking, light games
> 
> Quad-core if u want eg. hardcore games, benchmark tests , future optimization~~
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



what about a dual core that's faster than a quad core? Like Krait and later this year dual core Cortex A15 SOC's? I think you forgot those.
It is not really your fault, the open post asks the wrong question.


----------



## ray3andrei (Apr 8, 2012)

sreza said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5563/qualcomms-snapdragon-s4-krait-vs-nvidias-tegra-3
> 
> Krait is better on every test, save equal on browsermarks, 50% faster on OS operations. 28 nm build means it'll do all that at at least 40% less battery cost than Tegra 3. It also has an integrated LTE modem, saving even more power. Tegra's ninja core is not a good feature, it'll require separate optimization on the app side of things to work right, and the dynamic voltage on Krait gives an equivalent effect regardless.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



5000 .. 4000 that's the whole phone not only the CPU .. but benchmarks are just numbers..in terms of raw power t3 is better.. but its messy. I mean you're right the s4 is better.. just not in power. Honestly I'll buy the HTC one s instead of the one x 

Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3


----------



## sreza (Apr 8, 2012)

ray3andrei said:


> 5000 .. 4000 that's the whole phone not only the CPU .. but benchmarks are just numbers..in terms of raw power t3 is better.. but its messy. I mean you're right the s4 is better.. just not in power. Honestly I'll buy the HTC one s instead of the one x
> 
> Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3

Click to collapse



In a perfect world where every app is optimized for quad-cores, it would be true that Tegra 3 wins in power. But as far as I know, the only apps optimized for quad-core right now are the browser (where you can't have multiple windows onscreen at once), and that one game Nvidia made to show off their new chip. Considering how few pc programs need quad-core, and that they've had it for much longer than the mobile market, I don't really see the purpose of the extra 2 cores at all. With those circumstances taken into account, I feel confident in stating that having a SoC with 2 strong cores will always give a better user experience than 4 weak cores that happen to have higher benchmark scores, unless there's a massive fundamental shift in the Android world, like something comparative to Apple's Grand Central Dispatch. 

And even then, given Android's massive fragmentation, won't app developers want to write to the lowest common denominator to sell to the biggest user base? What ratio of the consumers will actually buy a quad-core set? How long will it take for quad-cores to inundate the field enough to make it worth it to develop an app that takes full advantage of all the cores, sacrificing the potential to sell to inferior devices? Again, we can look to the history of the pc market to see the future of the mobile market. Only the ultra-high res hard-core gamers use anything higher than a dual-core and actually take advantage of the full power of their device. And if I want to play Skyrim or Crysis 2 or (insert AAA-title here), I certainly wouldn't want to play it on a phone for crying out loud!

The way I see it, Nvidia is trying to convince us that we need a product that isn't even common on the average pc yet. I agree with everyone who loves the idea of having so much power in your pocket, the tech geek in me thinks it sounds fantastic! But at the end of the day, I'm forced to confront the reality that it'll be just like tricking out my car with a nitro tank(tegra 3) versus investing in an engine with better mileage, a larger gas tank, a better transmission, a better GPS, a better security system, or hell, even leather seats! What's the point of a nitro tank if every road has speed limits? Until the mobile world has an Autobahn, getting a quad-core amounts to bragging rights, not a better user experience.


----------



## ray3andrei (Apr 8, 2012)

sreza said:


> In a perfect world where every app is optimized for quad-cores, that would be true. But as far as I know, the only apps optimized for quad-core right now are the browser (where you can't have multiple windows onscreen at once), and that one game Nvidia made to show off their new chip. Considering how few pc programs need quad-core, and that they've had it for much longer than the mobile market, I don't really see the purpose of the extra 2 cores at all. With those circumstances taken into account, I feel confident in stating that having a SoC with 2 strong cores will always give a better user experience than 4 weak cores that happen to have higher benchmark scores, unless there's a massive fundamental shift in the Android world, like something comparative to Apple's Grand Central Dispatch.
> 
> And even then, given Android's massive fragmentation, won't app developers want to write to the lowest common denominator to sell to the biggest user base? What ratio of the consumers will actually buy a quad-core set? How long will it take for quad-cores to inundate the field enough to make it worth it to develop an app that takes full advantage of all the cores, sacrificing the potential to sell to inferior devices? Again, we can look to the history of the pc market to see the future of the mobile market. Only the ultra-high res hard-core gamers use anything higher than a dual-core and actually take advantage of the full power of their device. And if I want to play Skyrim or Crysis 2 or (insert AAA-title here), I certainly wouldn't want to play it on a phone for crying out loud!
> 
> The way I see it, Nvidia is trying to convince us that we need a product that isn't even common on the average pc yet. I agree with everyone who loves the idea of having so much power in your pocket, the tech geek in me thinks it sounds fantastic! But at the end of the day, I'm forced to confront the reality that it'll be just like tricking out my car with a nitro tank(tegra 3) versus investing in an engine with better mileage, a larger gas tank, a better transmission, a better GPS, a better security system, or hell, even leather seats! What's the point of a nitro tank if every road has speed limits? Until the mobile world has an Autobahn, getting a quad-core amounts to bragging rights, not a better user experience.

Click to collapse



Idk but you're right... but when tegra 3 released with the prime.. it was smoother than ecerything
...but yeah now with those dual cores... soon to be 2.0Ghz yeah..

Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3


----------



## sreza (Apr 8, 2012)

ray3andrei said:


> Idk but you're right... but when tegra 3 released with the prime.. it was smoother than ecerything
> ...but yeah now with those dual cores... soon to be 2.0Ghz yeah..
> 
> Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3

Click to collapse



"dual-core" Tegra 3 as I describe the user experience of Tegra 3 to be on the Prime is still a 1.5 GHz A9 chipset, compared to the Tegra 2 that came before it, which was 1.0 Ghz, it _is_ smoother and an all-around better experience. This isn't a comparison between a bad core and a good core. It's comparing a nice core (Tegra 3) and a better core (Krait).


----------



## The Dogan (Apr 8, 2012)

I think what a lot of people really want to say is if the choice is the S4 or Tegra 3 you should go with the S4 because Tegra 3 pales in comparison. 

When Qualcomm get their own quadcore S4 chips out and Samsung get theirs out it will be a different story. Most likely their quadcore chips will be worth buying over their dualcore's.

As much as I want to favour Nvidia here the Tegra 3 is inadequate compared to the new stuff.


----------



## ray3andrei (Apr 8, 2012)

sreza said:


> "dual-core" Tegra 3 as I describe the user experience of Tegra 3 to be on the Prime is still a 1.5 GHz A9 chipset, compared to the Tegra 2 that came before it, which was 1.0 Ghz, it _is_ smoother and an all-around better experience. This isn't a comparison between a bad core and a good core. It's comparing a nice core (Tegra 3) and a better core (Krait).

Click to collapse



Idk what you still have to argue with... tegra 3 HAS MORE POWER but it doesn't get used... while the krait uses all of it.. which results in fact a better experience..... this is the limitation of android. Doesnt take advantage of the 4 cores. End of story. The krait has a core which far outclasses the tegra 3 a15 vs a9

http://www.stuff.tv/news/phone/news...ne-x-vs-htc-one-xl-–-tegra-3-vs-snapdragon-s4
Read below the antutu benchmark.. 

Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3


----------



## MobileAge84 (Apr 8, 2012)

*Cores vs Performance*

No of cores as also other specifications mean nothing or little. Performance evaluation is more related to architecture efficiency of the whole CPU rather that the number of cores or frequency. Intel Medfield is the best example of this on an entirely difference instruction set cisc x86 vs risc based ARM.


----------



## sreza (Apr 8, 2012)

ray3andrei said:


> Idk what you still have to argue with... tegra 3 HAS MORE POWER but it doesn't get used... while the krait uses all of it.. which results in fact a better experience..... this is the limitation of android. Doesnt take advantage of the 4 cores. End of story. The krait has a core which far outclasses the tegra 3 a15 vs a9
> 
> http://www.stuff.tv/news/phone/news...ne-x-vs-htc-one-xl-–-tegra-3-vs-snapdragon-s4
> Read below the antutu benchmark..
> ...

Click to collapse



Almost correct: Android the OS is optimized for multiple cores as of the release of ICS. It's the apps that aren't optimized for multiple cores, and are unlikely to see more than a 10% gain in their user experience from becoming optimized (Krait gives 100% more gain compared to Tegra 3 without optimization, and will see the same 10% gain from optimization as the Tegra 3 regardless), and the vast majority of apps are unlikely to ever push the Tegra 3 to its limits even if they ever get optimized either, a highly unlikely scenario.

But apart from that minor detail your post is correct. I've been trying to spread the facts all week now. I've seen so many "Quad-core is future-proof!" "Quad-core gives more power!" "Dual-core to save battery power even though it must be weaker!" posts everywhere, and the sheer ignorance of the community frustrates me to no end.

Judging by my thanks meter, I've at least managed to show some people the truth of the matter. It makes me feel a little hope for humanity. ^_^


----------



## stephen2282 (Apr 8, 2012)

tjtj4444 said:


> what about a dual core that's faster than a quad core? Like Krait and later this year dual core Cortex A15 SOC's? I think you forgot those.
> It is not really your fault, the open post asks the wrong question.

Click to collapse



lol I'm just giving a very general advice. By that time quad core A15 is gonna be out too. So to play on the safe side its always btr to get a quad core I assume. Well hope that the apps r optimized to work well on quad-cores by that time too. 

Yeah question should be more specific, give us information like ur daily usage or factors u concern bout... Answerers wont be too confused by then


----------



## sreza (Apr 8, 2012)

stephen2282 said:


> lol I'm just giving a very general advice. By that time quad core A15 is gonna be out too. So to play on the safe side its always btr to get a quad core I assume. Well hope that the apps r optimized to work well on quad-cores by that time too.
> 
> Yeah question should be more specific, give us information like ur daily usage or factors u concern bout... Answerers wont be too confused by then

Click to collapse



One need only look at the pc market to see how likely developers are to optimize their apps for little to no benefit across the majority of devices. Quad-cores are just frivolous in every way save HD gaming.


----------



## sanke1 (Apr 8, 2012)

I would rather take faster dual core than slower quad


----------



## Xtr3meTM (Apr 8, 2012)

Good afternoon, how are you?

I think a dual core is better. Why? It is very easy. Currently I do not take advantage or the dual core, to throw a quad core.

Also the battery consumption is very important because the phones we have today, it is very hard to face the day of autonomy.

I have this day, would go to a dual core, when later in the field of development and optimization would go for a quad core.

Greetings from Spain!

Xtr3meTM


----------



## ray3andrei (Apr 8, 2012)

sreza said:


> Almost correct: Android the OS is optimized for multiple cores as of the release of ICS. It's the apps that aren't optimized for multiple cores, and are unlikely to see more than a 10% gain in their user experience from becoming optimized (Krait gives 100% more gain compared to Tegra 3 without optimization, and will see the same 10% gain from optimization as the Tegra 3 regardless), and the vast majority of apps are unlikely to ever push the Tegra 3 to its limits even if they ever get optimized either, a highly unlikely scenario.
> 
> But apart from that minor detail your post is correct. I've been trying to spread the facts all week now. I've seen so many "Quad-core is future-proof!" "Quad-core gives more power!" "Dual-core to save battery power even though it must be weaker!" posts everywhere, and the sheer ignorance of the community frustrates me to no end.
> 
> Judging by my thanks meter, I've at least managed to show some people the truth of the matter. It makes me feel a little hope for humanity. ^_^

Click to collapse



T3 has a lot of power... useless power.. that's why the krait s4 is better.. and if I think it out. The s4 doesn't use all of its power either... tegra 3 is messy, the s4 gives me a safer feel.. I don't know why 

Sent from my Samsung GNexus <3


----------



## jaebird (Apr 8, 2012)

I'll take quad core if they can turn off or throttle back cores independently. Otherwise, dual core and big battery. I want decent uptime at this point.


----------



## Felimenta97 (Apr 8, 2012)

I don't want to discuss, but I am curious, what would be better? 

Chipset 	Qualcomm MSM8260A Snapdragon
CPU 	Dual-core 1.5 GHz Krait
GPU 	Adreno 225

OR

Chipset 	Nvidia Tegra 3 T33
CPU 	Quad-core 1.6 GHz Cortex-A9
GPU 	ULP GeForce

The new Asus Transformer Infinity will have a variation for both. Which one would have a better performance? Or we will have to wait benchmarks for both versions?


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## I Am Marino (Apr 9, 2012)

The Snapdragon might still be better, just wait for benchmarks.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5


----------



## sreza (Apr 9, 2012)

Felimenta97 said:


> I don't want to discuss, but I am curious, what would be better?
> 
> Chipset 	Qualcomm MSM8260A Snapdragon
> CPU 	Dual-core 1.5 GHz Krait
> ...

Click to collapse



The Android environment prevents Tegra 3 from reaching the performance that benchmarks claim it can do. I think the best evidence is that the more expensive model that has LTE runs the Krait, while the wifi only model is relegated to Tegra 3. The Padfone runs on Krait as well.

Tegra 3 will show better benchmarks, but Krait will give better end-user performance.


----------



## Skazer (Apr 9, 2012)

Now, quad cores can adjust the amount of power being used by all the cores.  I think that it's better to get a quad core, then you can upgrade to the new rendition of android that supports quad core optimization.


----------



## MobileAge84 (Apr 9, 2012)

I've red a lot about Tegra 3 as a platform (chipset+CPU+GPU) but little specifications on the GPU side still identified as GeForce ULP. Did nvidia upgrade the GPU specs over the one present on Tegra 2?


----------



## Manvindar (Apr 9, 2012)

*micromax funbook*

Micromax funbook

is this good for the price tag???

Operating System-Android 4.0.3 Ice Cream Sandwich
Processor -1.2 GHz Cortex A8
Video Processor -Dual Mali 400 2D/3D
Sensor -Gravity Sensor and Accelerometer
Connectivity -Wi-Fii( 802.11 b/g)
Screen Size -7″ inch.
Screen Resolution -800×480, 16:9
Screen Type -Touch Screen Capacitive Multi Touch
Internal Memory-4 GB
Random Access Memory (RAM)-512 MB DDR3
Expandable Memory -Upto 32 Gb with SD card slot
USP support -Only Micro USB
Audio support -3.5 mm jack
File extension Supported -Almost every available extension supported
Weight -350 Grams
Dimensions -Height 192 mmWidth 122 mmThickness 10 mm
SIM Card Slot -Not Present
Phone Support -Not present
Price 	INR 6500 /-

http://www.fonearena.com/blog/48289/hands-on-micromax-funbook-tablet.html


----------



## pshadoww (Apr 9, 2012)

I think benchmark will tell you which is better. Just wait for reviews


----------



## tsleng (Apr 9, 2012)

itsjustmeagain said:


> A mobile phone is a tool - not only a toy.
> From my point of view there are very different and usefull things we can do with it. The most unimportant is gaming.
> 
> I really don't want to charge battery once a day. And if that can be achieved with single core cpu then I want single core.
> It's about time that manufacturers care about batteries if we don't want to charge every 2 hours with their BS eight core cpu tamagotchis in the future.

Click to collapse



Nokia 1100 

Sent from my HTC One X using XDA


----------



## ArmorD (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm not an expert in computer science, so I'm not gonna be a part of this quad vs dual fight. 
But I think manufactures are ignoring one very major feature in smartphones, battery life. They're just going away from it in every device they make. 
Today manufacturers are trying the make it slimmer and more powerful, and every time they do so, the battery life becomes shorter. 
So before they're inventing technologies for more powerful processors, they should try to invent technologies for less power consuming processors. 

E. I hate you SwiftKey 
Sent from LT18i @ Xda Premium


----------



## sreza (Apr 9, 2012)

Skaz3r said:


> Now, quad cores can adjust the amount of power being used by all the cores.  I think that it's better to get a quad core, then you can upgrade to the new rendition of android that supports quad core optimization.

Click to collapse



Tegra 3 does not have dynamic voltage, so no, it can't adjust the amount of power being supplied to each core. They are either 100% on or 100% off. If you're talking about splitting the task between the cores to fractionalize the clock speed necessary to complete a task (called "multi-threading"), that requires that the apps be optimized for quad-core. Android is optimized for _any more cores than 1_ as of the release of ICS, *but the apps are not.*

And there are very good economic reasons why developers won't want to update their apps with multi-threading capability, read my other posts.


----------



## c5satellite2 (Apr 9, 2012)

S4 KRAIT.  I have TP tegra3 and it is a great tablet, but for a handset S4 will be faster, better on battery, and from initial testing it looks like the graphics will be better than tegra 3.
2 much faster cores will beat 4 slower cores in a handset.  Hard to leverage the 4 cores properly with the current system bus/android design.

Dual core s4 krait

Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA


----------



## sreza (Apr 10, 2012)

pshadoww said:


> I think benchmark will tell you which is better. Just wait for reviews

Click to collapse



You can't judge technology by it's benchmark scores alone. Let me try and make a good analogy to explain this....

Let's say you're shopping for cars. Car 1 (Tegra 3) has a much higher top speed than Car 2 (Krait). It can go up to 300 miles an hour while Car 2 can only go up to 200. Judging by that fact alone, it's "obvious" that Car 1 is better.

But, don't roads have speed limits? What's the point of a car that can go to 300 miles per hour if the highest possible speed limit is only 70? I doubt you'd ever get a chance to go 300 miles an hour, even if the _benchmarks_ say that you _theoretically_ could. 

This is the limitation of the Android Market. Developers won't want to make an app that takes full advantage of Tegra 3 because if they did so their app wouldn't be able to sell to weaker phones. Tegra 3 will be a small part of the Android community, even if there was no Krait to counter it, simply because it's the expensive high-end phone. *Developers will always prefer making $1 dollar on 10 million devices than $20 on 100,000.*

Now, let's consider other factors. When you drive, you're constantly accellerating and decelerating. Stop light to stop light or whenever you take a turn. Let's say Car 1 goes from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds, while Car 2 goes 0 to 60 in 6 seconds. Car 2 will be much more useful for your daily driving needs. If you race from stop light to stop light, Car 2 will always get there first. In that same way, Krait is a more advanced chip than Tegra 3.

Let's consider fuel efficiency. Tegra 3 has that huge top speed. But in return, if you want to go that fast you burn through your gas like nothing else. Car 1's engine goes at 15 miles per gallon. Car 2's engine, on the other hand, gets 30 miles per gallon. Therefore, you'll need to refuel on Car 2 only half as much as Car 1. Car 2 is twice as fuel-efficient as Car 1.

Tegra 3 is built at 40nm while Krait is built at 28nm. This results in the fact that, when the task is not the pinnacle of HD gaming, for any given task compared between Tegra 3 and Krait, if the task is multi-threaded, Krait and Tegra 3 will both finish the task at the same time, *but Krait will use only half the battery power Tegra 3 needed to do so.*

If that same task is not multi-threaded, _as 99% of Android apps aren't,_ *Krait will finish that task in half the time as Tegra 3 while still only using half the battery power.*

If you don't pay attention to anything else about this post, read the sentence right above this one. _Then read it again._


Any multi-threaded benchmark will show that Tegra 3 is the "stronger" device, *but the environment is not optimized to take advantage of that power!* Just like both of the cars above being limited to the speed limit on the highways you'd drive them on, the power of the Tegra 3 engine will be wasted by the environment that surrounds it. 

You wouldn't get a special exemption from speed limits just because you have a very fast car, so why expect that to occur when buying a Tegra 3 device?

While on the other hand, the Krait chip is more dynamic, able to adjust to your needs on the fly, and optimized for the stuff you'll actually do day-to-day on your phone. Yet at the same time, will inherently do it all using half the battery power of Tegra 3.

I can't imagine someone wanting to buy Car 1 over Car 2, so why would you want to buy Tegra 3 over Krait S4?

Have you ever noticed that, while companies are putting Tegra 3 in their high end phones, the very highest end flapship phones are all getting Krait S4? This means something...


----------



## Skazer (Apr 10, 2012)

Well then, I think that you just beat everyone silly with your facts!  Good job sir


----------



## red12355 (Apr 10, 2012)

sreza said:


> Tegra 3 does not have dynamic voltage, so no, it can't adjust the amount of power being supplied to each core. They are either 100% on or 100% off. If you're talking about splitting the task between the cores to fractionalize the clock speed necessary to complete a task (called "multi-threading"), that requires that the apps be optimized for quad-core. Android is optimized for _any more cores than 1_ as of the release of ICS, *but the apps are not.*
> 
> And there are very good economic reasons why developers won't want to update their apps with multi-threading capability, read my other posts.

Click to collapse



Proof? I have never heard that Tegra 3 cores are either 100% on or off. As the Anandtech review shows, the cores can run at different frequecies other than the full speed and 0.


----------



## sreza (Apr 10, 2012)

red12355 said:


> Proof? I have never heard that Tegra 3 cores are either 100% on or off. As the Anandtech review shows, the cores can run at different frequecies other than the full speed and 0.

Click to collapse



We're talking about 2 different things here. When you adjust your processor with a custom kernel, you overclock it right? But there's another thing you do, it's called undervolting. You overclock a CPU to make it run faster and you undervolt it so it uses less battery power

The power a CPU uses is based on 3 things, the build architecture, the clock speed, and the voltage.

All processors adjust their clock speed to the task at hand, which is what you read about. But Krait can also dynamically adjust its voltage too. This is where the efficiency is increased. It doesn't matter if a Tegra core is reading a pdf file or watching a 1080p movie, it'll use the full voltage regardless.

For the third thing, build architecture, Tegra 3 is built at 40nm while Krait is built at 28nm. This means that Krait has _at least_ an additional 40% reduction in power consumption compared to Tegra 3 across the board. It's just part of the hardware.


----------



## The Janitor Mop (Apr 10, 2012)

The first package that will get me excited since my last big interest period in phones will be a dual core A15 combined with a great GPU. I couldn't care less about what a chip is capable of, I care about real world use and from my experience A8 vs. A9 makes a big difference, and so I'm confident A15 devices will be similarly faster and smoother than A9 devices. The GPU is also critical in my experience, so in my eyes the thing to be excited about is something like the upcoming exynos, not a A9 device with a lackluster GPU (Tegra 3 devices). 

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G with Beats Audio using XDA


----------



## Felimenta97 (Apr 10, 2012)

So, in the end S4 Krait will be better than Tegra 3 with a tablet? Just to see if I got everything.

Sent from my X10 Mini Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## sreza (Apr 10, 2012)

Felimenta97 said:


> So, in the end S4 Krait will be better than Tegra 3 with a tablet? Just to see if I got everything.
> 
> Sent from my X10 Mini Pro using Tapatalk

Click to collapse



Without a doubt, yes.


----------



## Felimenta97 (Apr 10, 2012)

sreza said:


> Without a doubt, yes.

Click to collapse



OK. Thanks for all the info, you and every one else that helped me getting this. 

Sent from my X10 Mini Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## red12355 (Apr 10, 2012)

sreza said:


> We're talking about 2 different things here. When you adjust your processor with a custom kernel, you overclock it right? But there's another thing you do, it's called undervolting. You overclock a CPU to make it run faster and you undervolt it so it uses less battery power

Click to collapse



But you said 100% on or 100% off. As the link shows, that is not the case. Putting that aside...



sreza said:


> The power a CPU uses is based on 3 things, the build architecture, the clock speed, and the voltage.
> 
> All processors adjust their clock speed to the task at hand, which is what you read about. But Krait can also dynamically adjust its voltage too. This is where the efficiency is increased. It doesn't matter if a Tegra core is reading a pdf file or watching a 1080p movie, it'll use the full voltage regardless.

Click to collapse



From Anandtech: "Balanced is the default setting and it drops maximum CPU clock to 1.2GHz and favors lower clock/voltage targets on the curve compared to Normal mode."

This clearly shows that Tegra 3 has more than 2 voltages as you are describing.



sreza said:


> For the third thing, build architecture, Tegra 3 is built at 40nm while Krait is built at 28nm. This means that Krait has at least an additional 40% reduction in power consumption compared to Tegra 3 across the board. It's just part of the hardware.

Click to collapse



Again, proof? Power consumption also depends on the architecture, not just the process. An example of this would be how Intel's 32nm sandy bridge chips use less power than AMD's bulldozer chips. Also, there's more than just the nm process. 28nm SOI will have different power consumption than 28nm bulk, lp, etc.


----------



## Skazer (Apr 10, 2012)

red12355 said:


> But you said 100% on or 100% off. As the link shows, that is not the case. Putting that aside...
> 
> 
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Thank you.  I know for a fact Intel processors have dynamic voltage control or frequency scaling according to how much / how little they are being used.  I would have thought that the same applies to current generation processors in cellular devices


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## sreza (Apr 10, 2012)

red12355;24653498Again said:
			
		

> http://www.extremetech.com/computin...vor-of-dual-core-s4-in-new-transformer-tablet
> 
> I'm not saying that Tegra 3's methods aren't satisfactory, I'm just saying that it's not as good as Krait S4.
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/computin...n-s4-and-tegra-3-manage-arm-cores-differently

Click to collapse


----------



## vetvito (Apr 10, 2012)

The core circus,  it feels like the PC wars again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDe7ynFPoMY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Hopefully that clears some of this up. 
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk


----------



## sreza (Apr 10, 2012)

vetvito said:


> The core circus,  it feels like the PC wars again.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDe7ynFPoMY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Wow! I made almost the exact same arguments and analogies, and I've never seen that video before. It's almost creepy, lol.


----------



## enigma00 (Apr 10, 2012)

red12355 said:


> Proof? I have never heard that Tegra 3 cores are either 100% on or off. As the Anandtech review shows, the cores can run at different frequecies other than the full speed and 0.

Click to collapse



What he should have said is that the Krait can asynchronously vary the clock speed of each core depending on the workload, whereas the other SoC's (including the Tegra3) typically have to clock all the cores at the same frequency.

This results in much lower battery consumption as the multiple core rarely have an equal amount of work to do.

The gimmicky 4+1 (the latter being the LP transistor-based) isn't a very elegant solution. Anyone can slap another core (at the expense of footprint and manufacturing cost), not not everyone can do what the Krait does for power control.

I'll take the two cores of a much more advanced architecture (Cortex A15 equivalent in 28nm process) over the two cores of an ancient architecture any day of the week.

I am praying that the next Nexus device will be based on the Krait S4 Pro.

---------- Post added at 01:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 AM ----------




marygoss said:


> *Quad-Core*:
> now it will be leading. Nvidia was the first to bring dual-core processing to mobile with the LG Optimus 2X, which debuted at the beginning of this year with the Tegra 2 chip. Nvidia is blazing the multicore trail again with the release of the Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime TF201 tablet. The Transformer Prime is the first device to ship with Nvidia's 1.3-GHz Tegra 3 quad-core processor. For now, it’s the only quad-core device on the market. The Transformer earned high praise from us for its stunning graphics and zippy performance.

Click to collapse



Did you just copy & past a marketing literature from NVidia?

Sure they are the first one to commercialize quad-core devices. They were also the first to commercialize dual-core devices as well. But their execution and design leave A LOT to be desired. NVidia is a company that puts more emphasis on marketing (i.e. first to commercialize this and that), but they come short on actual results.


----------



## Typhoon20 (Apr 10, 2012)

I understand wanting to game on the go but honestly don't.  You can still play games albeit not in that quality but overall you'll realise it isn't worth it.


----------



## MobileAge84 (Apr 10, 2012)

Gaming should better if external controls can be possible to use, but a powerful GPU would also be required for better video playbacks without always converting to the most efficient format.


----------



## vetvito (Apr 11, 2012)

^ you know we have HDMI out and can connect gaming controllers. 

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk


----------



## Nit3m4re (Apr 11, 2012)

Has it been confirmed anywhere reasonably reliable that the SIII will even be based on A15? I only ask because a Quad Core A9 Exynos in the SIII would surely get the same treatment as Tegra 3? Otherwise I think it's hard to get excited about anything coming out this year really, as what other phone is there to get? Certainly not the One X after the beat down Tegra 3 has had here which to be fair, it kind of deserves.. but the One S doesn't have the screen I want and is the S4 One X even going to be available in Europe?


----------



## sreza (Apr 11, 2012)

Nit3m4re said:


> Has it been confirmed anywhere reasonably reliable that the SIII will even be based on A15? I only ask because a Quad Core A9 Exynos in the SIII would surely get the same treatment as Tegra 3? Otherwise I think it's hard to get excited about anything coming out this year really, as what other phone is there to get? Certainly not the One X after the beat down Tegra 3 has had here which to be fair, it kind of deserves.. but the One S doesn't have the screen I want and is the S4 One X even going to be available in Europe?

Click to collapse



Unfortunately, we have no clue. Not even if it'll even be called the SIII. And the HTC One XL will be america only. I suggest you take a good look at the Asus Padfone. It's screen is average but it represents the future of convergent technology.

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 PM ----------




MobileAge84 said:


> Gaming should better if external controls can be possible to use, but a powerful GPU would also be required for better video playbacks without always converting to the most efficient format.

Click to collapse



I suggest taking a look at Project Fiona.

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/...plays-skyrim-on-ultra-high-settings-20120113/

Razer has stated that it will retail for less than 1000 USD. We're looking at a 3rd gen i7 core, a GTX 600+ GPU, and the capability to play -any- game that will run on a windows pc with similar specs.


----------



## Niallfitzy1 (Apr 11, 2012)

Whatever Samsung uses in galaxy s3 shall decide on dual core or quad core fate as Samsung is one of the biggest players. If they use quad then HTC and.samsung are so.that makes multicore apps more likely. Just.hold out till then.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk


----------



## elnovato (Apr 11, 2012)

*Quad FTW*

Battery life will get there


----------



## red12355 (Apr 11, 2012)

enigma00 said:


> What he should have said is that the Krait can asynchronously vary the clock speed of each core depending on the workload, whereas the other SoC's (_including the Tegra3) typically have to clock all the cores at the same frequency._

Click to collapse



But it doesn't. As the review I linked shows, individual cores can be gated off.  



enigma00 said:


> This results in much lower battery consumption as the multiple core rarely have an equal amount of work to do.

Click to collapse



See above. Also, since there's no 40nm A9 quad with asymmetric clock speeds, there's no way to compare which implementation is superior (in terms of power consumption) over the other.



enigma00 said:


> The gimmicky 4+1 (the latter being the LP transistor-based) isn't a very elegant solution. Anyone can slap another core (at the expense of footprint and manufacturing cost), not not everyone can do what the Krait does for power control.

Click to collapse



Chip design is all about tradeoffs (power consumption vs die size, performance vs die size, etc). Nvidia certainly has the funds and the manpower to implement asymmetric clocks, they just didn't because their R&D team decided that 4+1 is a more viable choice. I'm not sure what you mean by elegant. Like pretty much all engineering, you have to design the best product that meets certain constraints... In that sense the best solution is the most elegant one. ARM supports 4+1 (they call it big.LITTLE), so obviously there is some merit behind that type of implementation.



enigma00 said:


> Anyone can slap another core (at the expense of footprint and manufacturing cost), not not everyone can do what the Krait does for power control.

Click to collapse



I'm pretty sure if a company had the resources to design a SoC and implement 4+1, they would also be able to do asymmetric frequencies. I can guarantee you that Krait's power control system comes at the expense of die size as well. Again, it's all about balancing tradeoffs.


----------



## enigma00 (Apr 11, 2012)

Nit3m4re said:


> Has it been confirmed anywhere reasonably reliable that the SIII will even be based on A15? I only ask because a Quad Core A9 Exynos in the SIII would surely get the same treatment as Tegra 3? Otherwise I think it's hard to get excited about anything coming out this year really, as what other phone is there to get? Certainly not the One X after the beat down Tegra 3 has had here which to be fair, it kind of deserves.. but the One S doesn't have the screen I want and is the S4 One X even going to be available in Europe?

Click to collapse



Samsung has been very tight-lipped about the upcoming SIII, and I suspect no one (outside Samsung) knows what will be the final choice of SoC. 

If we assume that Samsung goes with an Exynos processor, it has to be one of the two:

- Exynos 5250 (Dual-core Cortex A15 - 32nm)
- Exynos 4412 (Quad-core Cortex A9 - 32nm)

Samsung is rumored to have the Exynos 5250 ready for production in the Q2 of 2012 (as in anytime now), I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung chose to go with the dual-core A15 since they publicly announced that they'll focus more on battery consumption.

However, this is an educated guess, but still very much a speculation.

Also, I think there isn't going to be one single version of the SIII. Just like the SII, I'd venture to guess that there will be multiple versions (e.g. like what HTC is doing with the One X and the One XL). So, it's entirely possible that a US variant of the SIII could get the Krait S4 + LTE.




Niallfitzy1 said:


> Whatever Samsung uses in galaxy s3 shall decide on dual core or quad core fate as Samsung is one of the biggest players. If they use quad then HTC and.samsung are so.that makes multicore apps more likely. Just.hold out till then.

Click to collapse



I don't follow this logic. Let's say that the SIII launches with the Exynos 4412. Are you saying the dual-core market is dead? 

How long has it been since the desktop CPUs have gone the multi-core route? To this date, there aren't many PC apps that fully utilize the multi-cores. 




elnovato said:


> Battery life will get there

Click to collapse



Please do enlighten us how it will get "there"?




red12355 said:


> But it doesn't. As the review I linked shows, individual cores can be gated off.

Click to collapse



Being gated off is MUCH different than asynchronously clocking each core. Power gating is used to shut off power to parts (in this case the 4 cores or the bonus core) while not in use. Once in use, all the cores will be clocked at the same frequency.

So, what was your point? I am not denying that the 4 cores can be shut off while not in use (or the bonus core while not in use).




red12355 said:


> See above. Also, since there's no 40nm A9 quad with asymmetric clock speeds, there's no way to compare which implementation is superior (in terms of power consumption) over the other.
> 
> Chip design is all about tradeoffs (power consumption vs die size, performance vs die size, etc). Nvidia certainly has the funds and the manpower to implement asymmetric clocks, they just didn't because their R&D team decided that 4+1 is a more viable choice. I'm not sure what you mean by elegant. Like pretty much all engineering, you have to design the best product that meets certain constraints... In that sense the best solution is the most elegant one. ARM supports 4+1 (they call it big.LITTLE), so obviously there is some merit behind that type of implementation.

Click to collapse



Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean it's a good solution or elegant. As to why Nvidia went with the extra low-power core, we can only speculate why they chose it, but we can make an educated guess that Nvidia rushed it to claim the "first quad-core" title the same way they rushed the dual-core solution.

When you can achieve the same or better results with less, I would call it an elegant solution over the more brute force counterpart.

When you have a multi-core SoC that can clock each core asynchronously, you don't need the extra companion (or little) core to run to save power in a low computational state.




red12355 said:


> I'm pretty sure if a company had the resources to design a SoC and implement 4+1, they would also be able to do asymmetric frequencies. I can guarantee you that Krait's power control system comes at the expense of die size as well. Again, it's all about balancing tradeoffs.

Click to collapse



You make a lot of assumptions and guarantees with nothing to back up your claims. The 4+1 is much easier/faster solution to implementation. Please do enlighten me with a technical white paper to back up your claim that the Krait has a bigger die size than it would have if went with the +1 core.


----------



## The Nexus Project (Apr 11, 2012)

JunyuT. said:


> people would tell you to get the quad, but personally I wouldn't cause
> a : No app needs THAT much power yet, ( I might be wrong here. )
> b : Battery life.

Click to collapse



Agree, quad cores wont be taken advantage of till jelly [email protected] earliest

Sent from my i9250 [GSM) Galaxy Nexus


----------



## AlexIvasuc (Apr 11, 2012)

boot-up speed/antatu
left one x
right one xl
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qR7zfXL_RdA


----------



## sreza (Apr 11, 2012)

AlexIvasuc said:


> boot-up speed/antatu
> left one x
> right one xl
> youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qR7zfXL_RdA

Click to collapse



Antatu is not an accurate representation of user experience. It makes full use of all available cores in a system when testing. The android environment is 99% unfriendly to multiple cores. This test is heavily biased towards the Tegra 3.


----------



## AlexIvasuc (Apr 11, 2012)

well,as far as i can tell antatu is a fair test,tegra 3 has more cores,antatu utillizes those cores=>better performance than S4,even the boot time is faster on the tegra 3 model.


----------



## red12355 (Apr 11, 2012)

enigma00 said:


> Being gated off is MUCH different than asynchronously clocking each core. Power gating is used to shut off power to parts (in this case the 4 cores or the bonus core) while not in use. Once in use, all the cores will be clocked at the same frequency.

Click to collapse



Here's what you originally said.


enigma00 said:


> ... other SoC's (including the Tegra3) typically have to clock all the cores at the same frequency.

Click to collapse



If a core is gated, then not all 4 are running at the same frequency, are they? I understand what you are saying about asynchronous clocks, I was just making a correction. 



enigma00 said:


> Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean it's a good solution or elegant. As to why Nvidia went with the extra low-power core, we can only speculate why they chose it, but we can make an educated guess that Nvidia rushed it to claim the "first quad-core" title the same way they rushed the dual-core solution.

Click to collapse



Explain why ARM is advertising it then. They didn't need to rush anything to the market. I am inclined to believe that the multi-million R&D teams of Nvidia and ARM are using a 4+1 type configuration not just because it sounds cool.



enigma00 said:


> When you can achieve the same or better results with less, I would call it an elegant solution over the more brute force counterpart.

Click to collapse




enigma00 said:


> You make a lot of assumptions and guarantees with nothing to back up your claims.

Click to collapse



I could say the same thing to you. Where's the proof that asynchronous clocks is more efficient than big.LITTLE/4+1? You're assuming that the former can reach or surpass the power efficiency of the latter and you're assuming that the former requires less die size than the latter. This may or may not be the case, but you don't know either way. 

You're just saying 4+1 is worse because it sounds intuitively "less elegant" to you. My point is that there since there is no apples-to-apples comparison, there is no way to tell which solution is better and therefore you shouldn't just write off 4+1 as worse because it sounds worse. 



enigma00 said:


> You make a lot of assumptions and guarantees with nothing to back up your claims. The 4+1 is much easier/faster solution to implementation.

Click to collapse



 You just did the same thing that you're claiming I did. Proof that 4+1 is easier or faster to implement?



enigma00 said:


> Please do enlighten me with a technical white paper to back up your claim that the Krait has a bigger die size than it would have if went with the +1 core.

Click to collapse



1. I never said Krait would have a bigger die size than it would have if it went with the +1 core.

2. Controlling multiple cores separately will always need more minimum logic (and therefore transistors) to control the individual cores. Any design with asynchronous clocks can be done with less transistors by using synchronous clocks. There's no way around it. You don't need an ECE background and you definitely don't need a white paper to understand this. 


I'll say this again for emphasis:
_Since there are no apples-to-apples comparisons of the two different implementations, there is no way to tell which solution is more power efficient. Therefore you shouldn't just write off 4+1 as worse because it sounds worse. _


----------



## sreza (Apr 11, 2012)

AlexIvasuc said:


> well,as far as i can tell antatu is a fair test,tegra 3 has more cores,antatu utillizes those cores=>better performance than S4,even the boot time is faster on the tegra 3 model.

Click to collapse



Because the android platform has nearly no apps that are multi-threaded. Antatu gives a biased result towards Tegra 3 by implying greater performance than we'll see in real life usage of the platform.

---------- Post added at 05:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 AM ----------




red12355 said:


> I'll say this again for emphasis:
> _Since there are no apples-to-apples comparisons of the two different implementations, there is no way to tell which solution is more power efficient. Therefore you shouldn't just write off 4+1 as worse because it sounds worse. _

Click to collapse



Look at Nvidia's white paper. You cannot have both the ninja core and a regular core on at the same time. Therefore, if you were watching a HD movie and your phone refreshed your email, updated twitter feeds, downloaded updates, etc. etc., the core doing the background work would run at the same level as the core watching the movie. That is extremely inefficient. 

While on Krait, the second core can become a ninja core at will and do any tasks at any level of power necessary. It _is_ a more elegant solution.


----------



## Deleted member 4571279 (Apr 11, 2012)

I think it is better to buy a quad-core phone because you will be sure that it will last more than 3 years  whit dual core you will survive maybe from GB to ICS and next android release maybe  who knows.


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## thamvmk (Apr 11, 2012)

*quad core*

Anyone knows any application that can utilize a quad core processor?


----------



## enigma00 (Apr 11, 2012)

It's obvious to me that you do NOT understand how power gating works. It has nothing to do the frequency each core runs at. It has to do with the dormant state where the power is shut off to parts not in use.

Obviously, your argument is that if the company X and Y are doing this, it must be smart. Well... you can continue to believe in their marketing hype. You don't need me to convince you otherwise.

This back-and-forth argument with someone who doesn't understand the technology behind is fruitless. I'll stop it right here.




red12355 said:


> Here's what you originally said.
> 
> If a core is gated, then not all 4 are running at the same frequency, are they? I understand what you are saying about asynchronous clocks, I was just making a correction.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse


----------



## AgentCherryColla (Apr 11, 2012)

Next year's Tega 4 is still Quadcore(+1). ICS can only handle 4 Cores properly. There's currently no method or getting more than 5 cores into a phone.


----------



## MobileAge84 (Apr 11, 2012)

The SP3X version of Tegra 4 seems will still be based on Cortex A9. How come nvidia is still using the old architecture.


----------



## sreza (Apr 11, 2012)

thamvmk said:


> Anyone knows any application that can utilize a quad core processor?

Click to collapse



I know of only 1, a game that Nvidia wrote themselves to show off their shiny new processor.


----------



## Akatosh (Apr 11, 2012)

Screw that, made a post before and realised it was the same as the page before.....nevermind


----------



## whax (Apr 11, 2012)

suky08 said:


> I think it is better to buy a quad-core phone because you will be sure that it will last more than 3 years  whit dual core you will survive maybe from GB to ICS and next android release maybe  who knows.

Click to collapse



IMHO - I think it'll be a wiser choice to wait for an OS that is well optimized for use with quads, and by that time probably q1 of 2013, quads would somehow be mainstream already and wouldn't cost that premium, and lots of options. If you get a dual core now, it'll probably last 1 and a half year to 2 and by then you can get yourslef a better quad core one.. just my thoughts.. These quads are kinda pricey right now..


----------



## jonneymendoza (Apr 11, 2012)

Someone posted this in another thread



> Note: This information is only relevant as long as the Tegra 3 and processors like it are the only quad-core CPUs, or until the majority of the things you do on an Android device are capable of the multi-threading necessary to make quad-core processors actually useful. The first is likely to change, the second isn't.
> 
> As of this writing, the only application I know of that makes full use of 4 cores is the specific game that Nvidia wrote just to demonstrate the "potential" of Tegra 3. That's it. Nothing else.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



interesting read. does that mean tegra 3 is crap and we should all return our One-X?


----------



## sreza (Apr 11, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> Someone posted this in another thread
> 
> 
> 
> interesting read. does that mean tegra 3 is crap and we should all return our One-X?

Click to collapse



Seeing as I'm the one who wrote that, I'll answer.

No, Tegra 3 is not crap. it's still a decent processor, and anyone who buys a phone that has it equipped will most likely be satisfied by its functional ability. My point in that post and the rest of the forum is that it's not the _best_ chipset anymore. It's not a comparison between a crap chip and a good chip. It's a comparison between a decent chip and a better chip.

I feel that the chip's lifespan as "state-of-the-art" is being artificially extended due to the average consumer assuming that having more cores is equivalent with having a stronger device.

In the case of the One X... If your buying choice is between the One X and the One S alone I would actually recommend the One X solely on the reason that the screen is far superior, even if it has an inferior core. Seeing as I live in America however, if I was on Sprint I would definitely go for the One XL which has the screen of the One X and the core of the One S and a bigger battery to boot.

Of course, I actually won't get any of those phones because I want the LTE Padfone! ^_^


----------



## I Am Marino (Apr 11, 2012)

No one should be saying Tegra 3 is a bad core, there's just one that's better overall.
Any Tegra 3 phone or device will be relevant for years to come.


----------



## jonneymendoza (Apr 11, 2012)

I Am Marino said:


> No one should be saying Tegra 3 is a bad core, there's just one that's better overall.
> Any Tegra 3 phone or device will be relevant for years to come.

Click to collapse



how much better is the S4?

is the tegra 3 better then previous dual cores from galaxy nexus?


----------



## DroidSFT (Apr 11, 2012)

*Dual.*

I'd stick with dual right now. No need to run out and have the first quad just to find out its not doing much more for you. I just make sure i close down all that dont need to be running and my SkyRocket at 1.5 dual core does fine. Maybe i'll try a quad next year...


----------



## trau89 (Apr 12, 2012)

DroidSFT said:


> I'd stick with dual right now. No need to run out and have the first quad just to find out its not doing much more for you. I just make sure i close down all that dont need to be running and my SkyRocket at 1.5 dual core does fine. Maybe i'll try a quad next year...

Click to collapse



I would have to agree. dual is doing fine for me right now and after the initial release of quad, something more efficient will be out soon enough.


----------



## sreza (Apr 12, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> how much better is the S4?
> 
> is the tegra 3 better then previous dual cores from galaxy nexus?

Click to collapse



Tegra 3 is better than the cores that came before it. As for how much better is the S4, read post #233 in this thread.


----------



## claud_face (Apr 12, 2012)

sreza said:


> Tegra 3 is better than the cores that came before it. As for how much better is the S4, read post #233 in this thread.

Click to collapse



I'm assuming its too early to know but what do you think will be the difference between the quad A15 released later thus year and the Samsung quad core they plan on putting into their gs3?

I just read your long post and found it interesting and was just curious 

Apologies if its a dumb question because maybe we don't even know which processor it is...

I remember reading they were choosing between two though 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA


----------



## Lamperouge2 (Apr 12, 2012)

quad core isn't always better than dual core, and vise versa. It all depends on how it is used and how much a specific piece of software was programmed correctly.


----------



## SteelToast (Apr 12, 2012)

Lamperouge2 said:


> quad core isn't always better than dual core, and vise versa. It all depends on how it is used and how much a specific piece of software was programmed correctly.

Click to collapse



Exactly! The Lumia 800/900 runs so smooth with not a hint of lag, despite its' so-called 2010 specs. Software optimization is key. Microsoft and even Apple has done it right. (Not so say Android has done it wrong, just that not as much as MS and Apple).


----------



## Lamperouge2 (Apr 12, 2012)

SteelToast said:


> Exactly! The Lumia 800/900 runs so smooth with not a hint of lag, despite its' so-called 2010 specs. Software optimization is key. Microsoft and even Apple has done it right. (Not so say Android has done it wrong, just that not as much as MS and Apple).

Click to collapse



And a lot of that has to do with the fact that Microsoft and Apple have close ties with processor engineers.


----------



## sreza (Apr 12, 2012)

claud_face said:


> I'm assuming its too early to know but what do you think will be the difference between the quad A15 released later thus year and the Samsung quad core they plan on putting into their gs3?
> 
> I just read your long post and found it interesting and was just curious
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Sorry, but at this point all we have are rumors of the chipset on the SIII. I'm really not all that interested in the SIII either, save from a purely academic standpoint. My heart belongs to the LTE Padfone, lol.

I will say though that if they release it with an A9 quad-core (which is unlikely, Exynos makes good chips), then I'll have roughly the same arguments against it as I do against Tegra 3. Going to the same car analogy I used before, a quad-core A15 chip would be taking Car 2 and revamping its engine to go 300 miles an hour like Car 1, but without sacrificing any of the benefits of Car 2. It would still be limited by the "speed limits" (Android environment), but the option is there to go faster. 

Personally, I'm going to buy a future incarnation of the Padfone with a quad-core A15 chipset and hack Cornerstone or Windows 8 onto it and multitask the hell out of it. That's the only situation I can think of where multiple cores gives a tangible benefit in the Android ecosystem. ^_^


----------



## densetsu86 (Apr 12, 2012)

Ok just want to say where is the info coming from and how trust worthy is it? Ie non bias info. Not a s4 krait site or apple or nvidia site.

I own a tegra 2 device (droidx2) and it is running leak stock 2.3.5 build .413 it is rooted as well.

Now tegra 2 on gingerbread (can't speak for ics but reading a couple threads sounds like it would be the same anyway) runs mainly on one core and turns on the 2nd core as needed. Even with benchmark tools like quadrant and smartbench 2012 says they are for dual core devices to give a more accurate reading i can say that, that is bullshit.

Someone found and made a script for the dx2 to keep its second core on for as long as you need it. Basically giving the owner of the phone free reign over the dual core and overriding android/tegra2.

With doing so my scores are doubled in smartbench 2012 even though it claimed to use dual core it did not on tegra2. And ny turning it on my phone is snappier and very quick with barely any hickups hell my phone gets close to stock preformances of razr and droid4 at their 1.2ghz new and better cpus.

So my question is how do we know these benchmark tools for tegra 3 did not get ****ed up like tegra 2?

I want tegra3 mainly because of the gpu that thing is sporting and when i do get an upgrade and i do grab a tegra3 (or it successor my upgrade is feb of 13) i will port over that script that was made for tegra2 modify it to get all 4 cores running all the time and run benchmarks myself and if my out dated tegra2 is only now slightly behind with both cores up im sure tegra3 will be doing much better.

Now there is a supposed battery drain with keeping my second core online all the time but if there was an impact its very little like maybe i only lose a half hour of battery life. I still get 16+ hrs on it.

My apps run better, my phone in general runs better and im using stock blur. And it runs nearly as nice as pure asop well at least the asop we have for this phone.

So i just want to ask how do we know for sure that it is getting bad scores cause of how tegra3 opperates and the benchmark app isn't reading it right?

Gl benchmark gave me two very different readings as well with 2nd core online all the time compared to its default ondemand setting.  Im thinking its not getting accurate scores because companies want to market there stuff better. Stock for stock yeah but turning all four on knowing for sure that they are on when the benchmark gets read may result in a much different picture like the droidx2. 

Sent from my DROID X2 using XDA


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## sreza (Apr 12, 2012)

densetsu86 said:


> So i just want to ask how do we know for sure that it is getting bad scores cause of how tegra3 opperates and the benchmark app isn't reading it right?
> 
> Sent from my DROID X2 using XDA

Click to collapse



Gingerbread is *not* optimized for multiple cores. Honeycomb is the first iteration of Android that can handle multiple cores. Even if those benchmark tests are capable of testing all cores, your OS wasn't capable of detecting/using the other core properly. 

It's clear from the Antatu benchmark that all 4 cores on Tegra 3 are functional and in use (at least, for the purposes of the benchmark test). 

You've actually taken things in completely the wrong direction. All the benchmark tests that account for multiple cores say that the Tegra 3 is the strongest chip in the mobile world.

However, strength isn't everything. See post #233 where I explain exactly why even though Tegra 3 is a stronger chip in terms of sheer processing power, Krait S4 is still a better chip in terms of consumer experience.


----------



## Stevethegreat (Apr 12, 2012)

I struggle to see the benefit of dual core to begin with. My modded SGS is as fast -day-to-day- as a decently modded SGS II. 

The only thing I envy from SGS II is the extra RAM, NOT the dual core. Either Android is a bad OS to make use of extra cores or we simply don't need multi-threading for the micro-applications we are running in our phones (as opposed to the full fledged application running on a PC).

In fact in everything apart from synthetics my SGS absolutely destroys a stock SGSII, it's a better phone -period- and I wouldn't change it. So if you want a better *phone* disregard the core number and look about everything else (build, battery, RAM, screen), if you want good benchmarks buy a quad core.


----------



## er_fabio (Apr 12, 2012)

optimized single core..............dual or quad core no use if it took advantage


----------



## Nit3m4re (Apr 12, 2012)

sreza said:


> Unfortunately, we have no clue. Not even if it'll even be called the SIII. And the HTC One XL will be america only. I suggest you take a good look at the Asus Padfone. It's screen is average but it represents the future of convergent technology.

Click to collapse



The Padfone does look interesting, I remember reading about it a while ago. But its not looking promising that it'll arrive in the UK any time soon and chances are I won't be able to get it on a good contract anyway over here.

I really want the Note tbh but it just seems like it'll be outdated very quickly with Exynos 5250 coming out at some point and S4 already being out. Just a waiting game now, if they would only just announce what's in the pipeline for us I can at least justify why I am still hanging on to my SGS haha.


----------



## Tuffshift (Apr 12, 2012)

Are there any applications that even properly utilize Quad Cores?


----------



## oinflam3so (Apr 12, 2012)

Besides battery life i think ill stick to dual core.


----------



## alevbozzi (Apr 12, 2012)

Quad core drain battery I suppose

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 11214 (Apr 12, 2012)

alevbozzi said:


> Quad core drain battery I suppose
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Click to collapse



Will it though?


----------



## R3dn0ze (Apr 12, 2012)

cork45 said:


> Will it though?

Click to collapse



I'm pretty sure 4 cores will use much more energy than 2 cores mate


----------



## sreza (Apr 12, 2012)

R3dn0ze said:


> I'm pretty sure 4 cores will use much more energy than 2 cores mate

Click to collapse



Actually no. Based on just the science of multiple cores alone, more cores equal less battery drain. However, the fact that Krait is built at 28 nm means that it's far more efficient that the Tegra 3. Quad-cores are also only more efficient if the environment is multi-threaded, and 99% of android is not.


----------



## DPMAce (Apr 12, 2012)

so how long will krait be considered a good buy?

my note supposedly had the fastest dual core processor for a month and already it's old news.

i'm sure tegra 4 is around the corner


----------



## sreza (Apr 12, 2012)

DPMAce said:


> so how long will krait be considered a good buy?
> 
> my note supposedly had the fastest dual core processor for a month and already it's old news.
> 
> i'm sure tegra 4 is around the corner

Click to collapse



Tegra 4 is set for Q1 2013 (this time next year). The flagship will be an A15 4+1 processor clocked at 1.8 GHz and the other 3 models won't be out until Q3 2013. 

The reason why the note fell out so quickly is because they went with the older Snapdragon S3 for its LTE radio.

I would say Krait will stay a good buy until TI releases OMAP 5, or Exynos releases their thing, or Tegra 4 next year, but only if those chips have the perks we see in Krait! If they don't have asynchronous clocks then it'll kind of be a waste unless the Market magically becomes multi-threaded overnight. 

Assuming that the Krait S4 Pro has the same specs as the S4 in all ways save the number of cores in the device, then by the science alone we really shouldn't see any benefit to buy the quad-core version. It'll be nice to have that option if some developer releases quad-core super-intensive HD games, but unless I can hack and install Windows 8 on the device to run it on so I can use Window's windows to realistically multi-task, I don't see the point in upgrading to a quad-core device.

I would definitely upgrade if any A15 chipset comes out with a higher clock speed than Krait's 1.5 GHz though. Dual-core or quad-core, that's a tangible difference in your user experience.


----------



## resurrecion fight (Apr 12, 2012)

Nice


Inviato dal mio Galaxy Nexus usando Tapatalk 2


----------



## I Am Marino (Apr 12, 2012)

S4 will stay relevant for a while but I don't see it being really surpassed until end of the year.


----------



## Nit3m4re (Apr 13, 2012)

It kind of just seems to me now that the only reason this discussion is actually worth having is if the results are savings in battery.
In any other area it feels like it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if you have dual or quad core literally because of this scenario where the S4 is quite clearly better than Tegra 3. No dual core is going to struggle running ICS, heck even my Hummingbird isn't struggling lol, so I doubt any 2 Core A9 or A15 is going to have difficulties a year or 2 down the line should there be another update to android in that time.
The ONLY reason anyone could possibly need quad is as stated by sreza where you might want to go on and install Windows or some other OS and really use it as more of a PC.. but for me personally and probably a lot of people, the device is literally still a phone.
Its a shame but as everyone keeps on pointing out, if the developers for apps aren't going to go through the effort of optimising for quad core then it literally is pointless having them there, unless you're saving battery.. then I suppose its worth it. But even that is down to how well the CPU is made, as we know from nVidia's mistakes lol.


----------



## neopi21 (Apr 13, 2012)

my htc sensation has a good power consumption


----------



## Killbynature (Apr 13, 2012)

You will want processors like this assuming all new processors are out. Full development capabilities. T.I omap 5 why because they have accessible hardware data sheets. Since T.i Omap is fully open sourced you can get the most out of your device(hardware hacking and software to its fullest extents). Exynos hardware data sheets are available to some people not as good as ti omap but its good. Qualcomm would be next as their hardware data sheets are locked down. But they are really good with their software they seem to be getting better by releasing more of once unavailable  software.

Why you should reject nvidia also intel when they come. Nvidia keeps their gpu configuration locked down. Pretty much the whole soc is locked down including software unless your developing a tegra games. Custom kernel won't be as good as say qualcomm or exynos or ti omap. Nvidia is seriously limiting their performance by locking their soc down. 

Intel is pushing x86 architecture on arm market. This is really ignorant. No developer will want to build one app for intel and one for the rest of the android market. Its already bad enough some apps arent compatible with some phones. But now you will get that for apps you already bought and might never get support for  x86 architecture.


----------



## sreza (Apr 13, 2012)

Killbynature said:


> You will want processors like this assuming all new processors are out. Full development capabilities. T.I omap 5 why because they have accessible hardware data sheets. Since T.i Omap is fully open sourced you can get the most out of your device(hardware hacking and software to its fullest extents). Exynos hardware data sheets are available to some people not as good as ti omap but its good. Qualcomm would be next as their hardware data sheets are locked down. But they are really good with their software they seem to be getting better by releasing more of once unavailable  software.
> 
> Why you should reject nvidia also intel when they come. Nvidia keeps their gpu configuration locked down. Pretty much the whole soc is locked down including software unless your developing a tegra games. Custom kernel won't be as good as say qualcomm or exynos or ti omap. Nvidia is seriously limiting their performance by locking their soc down.
> 
> Intel is pushing x86 architecture on arm market. This is really ignorant. No developer will want to build one app for intel and one for the rest of the android market. Its already bad enough some apps arent compatible with some phones. But now you will get that for apps you already bought and might never get support for  x86 architecture.

Click to collapse



It's true, but I still wish Intel the best. I hate how locked-out the ARM version of Win8 is. My dream is to one day have an Asus successor to the Padfone running Win8 on a fully customizable OS that can run .exe files with at least 12 hours of heavy use.

Home, work, even the couch, it would be wonderful to have modular attachments to increase the screen/productivity of my phone to become a direct replacement for any other pc I might need. To just sit down, jack in, get things done, and unplug myself and walk out with my pc in my pocket. And I can see that we're -this- close to that day. We have the technology, just need to put it together is all.


----------



## jonneymendoza (Apr 13, 2012)

Here is another thing. by that guys definition of saying duals are better the quads for battery and general performance, Then that means a very fast single core 2ghz would beat a s4 in terms of performance and battery life right as it is only using one core and how not many apps cater for multiple cores to begin with


----------



## sreza (Apr 13, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> Here is another thing. by that guys definition of saying duals are better the quads for battery and general performance, Then that means a very fast single core 2ghz would beat a s4 in terms of performance and battery life right as it is only using one core and how not many apps cater for multiple cores to begin with

Click to collapse



No! If we're comparing apples to apples, the quad-core version of a processor is better than the dual-core version. But the current buying environment isn't a choice between Krait S4 and Krait S4 Pro (the quad-core version). It's a choice between Krait S4 (which happens to be a dual-core) and Tegra 3 (which happens to be a quad-core). 

In a scenario without extenuating circumstances, a quad-core processor has both better battery life and performance than a dual-core processor. However, there are many such issues that push the Krait S4 ahead of the Tegra 3.

1) Krait has better build size
2) Tegra does not have asynchronous clocks
3) The Android environment cannot take advantage of multi-core processing
4) Krait is designed to compete with A15, Tegra 3 is A9

If those circumstances did not exist, then Tegra 3 would be far superior to Krait S4. The one thing I've tried to get across through all my posts is that the title of this thread shouldn't be "dual core or quad core" because that question is easily answered through computer science. The reason why this controversy can exist in the first place is because *not all cores are created equal.*

In the case of the single core extremely powerful chip, I would have to say no because ICS can detect multiple cores. So even though the apps themselves cannot take advantage of other cores, ICS can stick itself to one core and run apps on the other, which lowers battery consumption by a great deal versus forcing a single powerful core to run at high speeds to do all the work by itself.


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Ariozo (Apr 13, 2012)

Alot off talk about dual or quad this days, But without scores i have to say my One S with the Dual S4 feels faster then my One X in everyday use. More "snappy"..
Ofc. like some tests show Tegra3 should be fast in some games, but i talk in general things i do every day i realy like the S4..

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk


----------



## jonneymendoza (Apr 13, 2012)

sreza said:


> No! If we're comparing apples to apples, the quad-core version of a processor is better than the dual-core version. But the current buying environment isn't a choice between Krait S4 and Krait S4 Pro (the quad-core version). It's a choice between Krait S4 (which happens to be a dual-core) and Tegra 3 (which happens to be a quad-core).
> 
> In a scenario without extenuating circumstances, a quad-core processor has both better battery life and performance than a dual-core processor. However, there are many such issues that push the Krait S4 ahead of the Tegra 3.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Let me rephrase. I would a single core krait beat a dual core krait? Going buy what people said the answer is yes it will as more cores = more battery drain and no apps using mode then one core 

Sent from my HTC One X using XDA


----------



## sreza (Apr 13, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> Let me rephrase. I would a single core krait beat a dual core krait? Going buy what people said the answer is yes it will as more cores = more battery drain and no apps using mode then one core
> 
> Sent from my HTC One X using XDA

Click to collapse



No, more cores does not mean more battery drain. The main purpose of having multiple cores is to -save- battery power, not make the system stronger. A single core S4 would drain more battery than a dual core, and here's why:

Let's say you are using the full power of the single core device, the clock speed is at maximum and the voltage is at maximum. Compare that to splitting your workload whereas ICS is on one core while your app is on the other. Assuming the app takes the same amount of power as ICS does, your cores are now doing the same task, but at only 50% of the full processor speed. This is very important because it means you are producing far less heat and using far less battery power than you would with the single core device.

Back to my car analogy again (I must really love cars huh?) Anyone who took physics in school should remember the law of kinetic energy. It takes 4 times as much power to go twice as fast in a car. While not at the same ratios, this same idea holds true for CPU cores. 1 core working at 100% is less efficient than 2 cores working at 50%, *as long as all other things about the environment are the same, and the apps are multithreaded.*

While android apps for the most part are not multithreaded, that just means you can't split up a single app between cores. You can still assign different apps to different cores. So while the 1 core system would inefficiently run both the system and all your apps on a single core, a dual core system can run android itself and minor background tasks on 1 core while running your main big intensive app on the other.

In an environment where all other things remain the same: quad core A15 > dual core A15 > single core A15.


EDIT: See this diagram showing how multiple core efficiency works:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...3ec34885d0ab5dc58cb3&a=bi&pagenumber=14&w=800


----------



## jonneymendoza (Apr 13, 2012)

sreza said:


> No, more cores does not mean more battery drain. The main purpose of having multiple cores is to -save- battery power, not make the system stronger. A single core S4 would drain more battery than a dual core, and here's why:
> 
> Let's say you are using the full power of the single core device, the clock speed is at maximum and the voltage is at maximum. Compare that to splitting your workload whereas ICS is on one core while your app is on the other. Assuming the app takes the same amount of power as ICS does, your cores are now doing the same task, but at only 50% of the full processor speed. This is very important because it means you are producing far less heat and using far less battery power than you would with the single core device.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



So then a quad core SHOULD by your definition above, save more battery life then a dual core but you previously said it doesnt? i am getting confused mate.

simple question i will ask you, does more cores = better battery life?


----------



## sreza (Apr 13, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> So then a quad core SHOULD by your definition above, save more battery life then a dual core but you previously said it doesnt? i am getting confused mate.
> 
> simple question i will ask you, does more cores = better battery life?

Click to collapse



It all depends on how well you can split your tasks up between cores.

The average phone has 3 main tasks running at once:
1) The OS
2) Background Stuff (like syncing email)
3) The main onscreen app (Browser, Youtube, Video Player, Music, Etc...)

A single core system will run at 100% to do all the tasks on its single core. Very inefficient.

(Krait S4) A dual core system without multithreading but with asynchronous clocks will split it up so the OS and the Background happens on core 1 while the main app happens on core 2. So core 1 runs at 40% and core 2 runs at 60%.

(Krait S4 Pro) A quad core system without multithreading but with asynchronous clocks will split it up like the dual core system. Core 1 at 30% running the OS. Core 2 at 10% running background tasks. Core 3 at 60% running the main app. Core 4 is off.

(Tegra 2) A dual core system without multithreading nor asynchronous clocks will split it up so the OS and the Background happens on core 1 while the main app happens on core 2. Since the cores have the same clock, both cores run at 60% even though core 1 only needs 40%.

(Tegra 3) A quad core system without multithreading nor asynchronous clocks will split it up between cores still. But without asynchronous clocks a lot of power is wasted. Core 1 is at 60% running the OS (even though it only needs 30%). Core 2 is at 60% running background tasks (even though it only needs 10%). Core 3 is at 60% running the main app (using exactly the power it needs, and needlessly dragging the other cores into a higher power state for no reason). Core 4 is off, but if you start playing music too it'll have to run at 60% because of Core 3.


So my answer is, as long as you're comparing apples to apples (Krait cores to Krait cores), then more cores equals less wasted battery power. 

However, the only quad-core on the market right now is Tegra 3, which as you can see above means you'd be comparing apples to lemons.

Honestly, the way I look at it is that you need more than 1 core, but any more than 2 starts being wasteful in the current environment.


----------



## BunmiHiT3k (Apr 13, 2012)

*Quad COREEEEE*

Quad Core all day.. its faster.. but ur battery will run out quickly


----------



## inu629 (Apr 13, 2012)

Dual core is more than enough but if quad core available then I take Quad core without any doubt


----------



## briarwood (Apr 13, 2012)

sreza said:


> It all depends on how well you can split your tasks up between cores.
> 
> The average phone has 3 main tasks running at once:
> 1) The OS
> ...

Click to collapse




I've been following your posts, great stuff and incredibly informative. Thanks. 

I have a few questions. If I understand your points correctly Tegra 3 has the most raw power available right now but that power can't be taken advantage of because there are no apps optimized for more than 2 cores and because Android itself doesn't utilize all 4 or 5 cores since it's 4+1. 

You stated that because of Kraits ability to clock both cores at different speeds it's more efficient and saves battery life. Also it's manufactured at 28 nm and it's built to compete with A15 as opposed to A9. 

If NVidia had designs on building the king of the hill chip why did they design the cores to all run at the same speed? Also, why didn't they manufacture the chip using 28 nm technology and why build to compete against A9 instead of A15? 

Did they think brute power would win the day? 

Also, why develop a 4+1 chip if it can't be properly utilized to take advantage of all the cores? 

Seems to me that NVidia didn't think things through and decided being the biggest and baddest would be the best solution.


----------



## tjtj4444 (Apr 13, 2012)

sreza said:


> No, more cores does not mean more battery drain. The main purpose of having multiple cores is to -save- battery power, not make the system stronger. A single core S4 would drain more battery than a dual core, and here's why:
> 
> Let's say you are using the full power of the single core device, the clock speed is at maximum and the voltage is at maximum. Compare that to splitting your workload whereas ICS is on one core while your app is on the other. Assuming the app takes the same amount of power as ICS does, your cores are now doing the same task, but at only 50% of the full processor speed. This is very important because it means you are producing far less heat and using far less battery power than you would with the single core device.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



This is an description using an artificial/abstract work load coming from Nvidia marketing material. In almost all cases when using your phone this work load (and corresponding power save) will not happen. 
In most cases the work load is either very low (for example just waiting for you to press a link in the browser), or the CPU is very busy, usually with CPU-load varying rapidly between 0-100% on the cores, for example parsing/rendering a web page


----------



## Maggost (Apr 13, 2012)

Quad cores on cellphones? i dont think it's worth it...the 2 cores gen will remain for a long time imo.

I have a 6 core CPU in my gaming rig and sometimes i dont use 4 cores at all even at high load times!


----------



## pigr8 (Apr 13, 2012)

dualcore is more than enough if OS is optimized, even if 4 core are more energy efficient than 2.


----------



## sreza (Apr 13, 2012)

tjtj4444 said:


> This is an description using an artificial/abstract work load coming from Nvidia marketing material. In almost all cases when using your phone this work load (and corresponding power save) will not happen.
> In most cases the work load is either very low (for example just waiting for you to press a link in the browser), or the CPU is very busy, usually with CPU-load varying rapidly between 0-100% on the cores, for example parsing/rendering a web page

Click to collapse



Yes I know, but it seemed the easiest way to explain how multiple cores should _theoretically_ work.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------




briarwood said:


> I've been following your posts, great stuff and incredibly informative. Thanks.
> 
> I have a few questions. If I understand your points correctly Tegra 3 has the most raw power available right now but that power can't be taken advantage of because there are no apps optimized for more than 2 cores and because Android itself doesn't utilize all 4 or 5 cores since it's 4+1.
> 
> ...

Click to collapse



Because it works. The appearance of being the biggest and baddest sways consumer opinion by an absurd degree. You can see evidence of this in _all_ markets for all products. You can't tell me this is the first time you've seen an inferior product sell better due to marketing?

Android can use the cores, it's the apps that aren't optimized to use them, gotta have both for multithreading.

The way Tegra 3 works is that if the total load on the CPU is less than 500 MHz, than the ninja core does everything. Once your needs become greater than 500 MHz, it turns off the ninja core and turns on the main core(s). But just because you're using your phone doesn't mean that background tasks stop updating.... And that's where not having asynchronous clocks is a very bad thing. If you're watching a HD movie, let's say Core 1 is running at 80% to render it. Core 2 is  forced wastefully to also run at 80% even though it only needs to use 5% to idle the OS, and Core 3 will be running at 80% whenever your background tasks start running even though they might only need 10%. You can never have the ninja core and any of the main cores running simultaneously.

As for Nvidia's marketing strategy, looking at their past actions their marketing has always been about "First to do this, first to do that". The average consumer also tends to care far more about benchmark scores (if they care at all about how strong their device is) rather than how efficient their device is. 

It's hard to explain in a short amount of time to Avg. Joe why his 4 cores isn't as good as my 2 cores, and the explanation is likely to go over his head, and leave me looking like a jealous douche.

Frankly, It's the same reason why people buy very fast cars. Bragging rights. 

You can try to explain to them why this other car fits their lifestyle much better and will make them happier in the long run, but at the end of the day the vast majority of people will either ignorantly assume 4 is better than 2, or ignore the research data altogether because they are far more interested in bragging about having a higher benchmark or just to brag about the word "quad-core" in general.


EDIT: The post below this sadly proves my point all too well...


----------



## derriseo (Apr 14, 2012)

*quad*

i prefer quad core. i think that quad core its fastest than dual core


----------



## techmatlock (Apr 14, 2012)

I would say quad core and not just because it has more cores.  You never know what future development holds and when you have a phone that has more cores optimized for heavy processing that developers can code into their projects to utilize using all 4 efficiently.  The beauty of open source + sdk and high end hardware to work with.


----------



## Killbynature (Apr 14, 2012)

UnlockedNand said:


> I would say quad core and not just because it has more cores.  You never know what future development holds and when you have a phone that has more cores optimized for heavy processing that developers can code into their projects to utilize using all 4 efficiently.  The beauty of open source + sdk and high end hardware to work with.

Click to collapse



With who not tegra hardware data sheets limit the processer for actually capable. Exynos isnt fully open sourced either. Android is open source but the System on a chip besides T.i Omap is not on most manufactures. No developer will make a multi threaded app with knowing the full extensions of what the hardware is capable of.


----------



## GGLDN (Apr 14, 2012)

even if you do game dual core is more than enough with the right rom etc. im running gta 3 on cpu max 998400 which is underclocked. no lag at all on a desire s. so a dual core like the nexus s will be fine, you just have to find the right rom/kernel and settings. quadcore will kill battery and you'll end up paying much more.

i also saw a vid comparing dual core to quad core using quadrant benchkmark. obviously they dont mean alot but the quad core beat the dual core in processing, overall the dual core speed was almost double. quadcore dual core isnt the only thing to consider


----------



## peacekeeper05 (Apr 14, 2012)

Depends on what architecture or technolgy it was made. A Dual core A9 from tegra is weaker and slower than the Quadcore Tegra 3.



Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA


----------



## peacekeeper05 (Apr 14, 2012)

Baterry wise, more people are saying that The One X lasts longer than the one S. But we should take into consideration that the One S has less battery size but then again The One X has larger screen, uses LCD and also has higher resolution display

Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA


----------



## sreza (Apr 14, 2012)

peacekeeper05 said:


> Baterry wise, more people are saying that The One X lasts longer than the one S. But we should take into consideration that the One S has less battery size but then again The One X has larger screen, uses LCD and also has higher resolution display
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA

Click to collapse



This is an excerpt from Engadget's comparison of the 2 platforms:


There's one design choice we didn't mention earlier, and it's enough of a doozy that it could potentially swing your decision: neither phone has a user-accessible battery. Sure, both handsets are thinner as a result, but we imagine there will be more than a handful of power users who would happily accept a little extra heft if it meant they could swap in a larger juicepack. And let's face it: with the amount of normal use we're getting out of our phones these days, who isn't turning into a power user?

When it comes to runtime, the advantage clearly goes to the One S. But before we get into specific results, there are few variables to consider: first, the X comes with a 1,800mAh pack compared to the S's 1,650, but it also needs to service a larger, higher-res LCD display -- a big potential drain on any phone's battery life.
HTC One X	HTC One S
Video rundown time	 6 hours	 8.5 hours
Regular-use time	 12.5 hours	 13.5 hours

As you can see, the screen in this case does indeed has an impact on runtime. In our standard video rundown test, which consists of looping movies with the brightness fixed at 50 percent brightness, the S led the X by two and a half hours. Still, the S only lasted marginally longer with regular use, which included checking email, web browsing, Twitter, Facebook, downloading apps, some light photo / video recording and other miscellany. When we left both phones on standby, only occasionally checking email, taking a photo or placing a call, the One X actually outlasted the S.

This simply confirmed to us what we already knew: the continually backlit LCD display and larger screen size are going to be a significant drain on the battery, especially compared to the AMOLED display on the S. But another aspect that didn't get a lot of love in this department was graphics performance. In fact, after pushing the Tegra 3's GPU through the full gamut of GLBenchmark tests for 20 minutes, the X's battery slipped 17 percent. And how did the S do when faced with the same task? It only experienced a nine percent drop.


----------



## altruistic666 (Apr 14, 2012)

Battery drainage issue will be there wherever there is big display to flaunt. Now here what I wanted to know was is there any advantage with quad core with multi tasking perspective.  Especially with huge apps which I open after connecting vpn and all.  

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Deggy (Apr 14, 2012)

Loving the people who just read the title, not read anything in the thread and just posting two or three words.

Sent from my MB860 using XDA


----------



## treebill (Apr 14, 2012)

Kerosine said:


> What about 4-PLUS-1 technology? Any idea whether such systems actually make things run more efficiently using only 1 core (the "ninja" core) for low-end tasks? No idea about this, just floating it to see what news there is out there about this technology.

Click to collapse



I have my one x set to keep screen on while plugged in just to test this.

It is settling @ 102 MHz and is sitting there for most of the time, it jumps up to 1 GHz when apps run and then jumps to 1.4/1.5 when you open intensive apps.

i have to admit the biggest drain on the battery is the beauty of a screen on auto brightness the screen will use ~80% i have my screen on 50% brightness and the screen battery use is 60%.

as for running stuff all i can say is on the quad core this thing loads stuff fast.


----------



## peacekeeper05 (Apr 14, 2012)

sreza said:


> This is an excerpt from Engadget's comparison of the 2 platforms:
> 
> 
> There's one design choice we didn't mention earlier, and it's enough of a doozy that it could potentially swing your decision: neither phone has a user-accessible battery. Sure, both handsets are thinner as a result, but we imagine there will be more than a handful of power users who would happily accept a little extra heft if it meant they could swap in a larger juicepack. And let's face it: with the amount of normal use we're getting out of our phones these days, who isn't turning into a power user?
> ...

Click to collapse



Lol. Why the need to quote the whole engadget? I never said everyone is saying the One X has better battery life  

Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA


----------



## canuckerr (Apr 14, 2012)

I don't think a phone needs anything more than a dual core until the battery problem is solved.

How can we keep adding all these new gadgets and technology when we don't have enough power to power them?

I would say stay clear of a quad core phone. 
Personally, my ideal phone right now would be a single core optimized to the fullest!
The battery life on smart phones these days are horrendous. 

Changing batteries or buying big bulky battery extenders is not an option for me. 

I would say dual core should be your best bet. There is nothing worse when I go to school at 8am and come home at 6pm and go out that same night and my batter doesn't last the entire night.


----------



## i'Sense (Apr 15, 2012)

*Normal that quadcore is better*

Quadcore is better & quicker


----------



## rotarynerd (Apr 15, 2012)

I really want one, but I'm afraid of the battery life, even though I do have a habit of carrying my charger with me at all times since my MT4G has a bad battery lol


----------



## Night Walker! (Apr 15, 2012)

It's never bad to have more cores, and if you get the nvidia one it have a fifth core that save a lot of battery.


----------



## akaliel (Apr 15, 2012)

I've read that the HTC One X is actually quite jittery and choppy.  Bloody Sense...  It's murder on my EVO 3D.


----------



## riz.nexus (Apr 15, 2012)

*Dual/Quad*



bdfull3r said:


> Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.
> 
> Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk

Click to collapse



Galaxy nexus is a good option and as far as the dua/quad query, for a normal user not much of a difference, i just had a hands on HTC One X and it's good no doubt but the exorbitant pricing of this phone does not  go in it's favour. i thought my GNexus was on par with it. checkout the test bench  for HTC one S, it being a dual core beats quad core heads down.


----------



## exb0 (Apr 15, 2012)

riz.nexus said:


> Galaxy nexus is a good option and as far as the dua/quad query, for a normal user not much of a difference, i just had a hands on HTC One X and it's good no doubt but the exorbitant pricing of this phone does not  go in it's favour. i thought my GNexus was on par with it. checkout the test bench  for HTC one S, it being a dual core beats quad core heads down.

Click to collapse



then again, those are benchmarks. I remember a thread complaining about the nexus s, it had really high scores but bad real life usage. 

It boils down to personal flavour. I prefer dual core because its more matured than quad core. But there are people that would say otherwise.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium


----------



## SteelToast (Apr 15, 2012)

Dual core A15s are the way to go currently until quad core A15s come out. As most apps aren't made to take advantages of 4 cores, so a way more powerful dual core is your best bet.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus


----------



## ~Immo~ (Apr 15, 2012)

Quadcore will be very useful on real multi tasking like Maemo on the n900....

Hopefully we will see it in future updates of Android??..

As for the One X i Think the battery is not actually that bad. Its very good when idle but can get a bit greedy in use, but all boils down to what you actually use the phone for and how often..


----------



## inthestarrysky (Apr 15, 2012)

stephen2282 said:


> Dual-core if u just do basic things on ur phone eg. web browsing, social networking, light games
> 
> Quad-core if u want eg. hardcore games, benchmark tests , future optimization~~
> 
> ...

Click to collapse




The hardware requirements we place on phones doubles about every year but my Galaxy Note can handle almost anything I can throw at it 1.4Ghz dual cure is well an truly future proof at least for now and more cores doesn't necessarily make it faster just means you can do more things at once you want a higher clock speed, rather than worrying about how many cores your phone has think about how much RAM it has


----------



## ~Immo~ (Apr 15, 2012)

Will be interesting to see the apps that support the 4+1 cpu..

I know there are a few kicking about but none that really appeal to me...


_To prevent spam to the forums, ALL new users are not permitted to post outside links in their messages. After approximately eight posts, you will be able to post outside links. Thanks for understanding!_

Nice ^ -.-

Anyway google 4+1 cpu Tegra and you will see a few apps that support the tegra  4+1


----------



## corge (Apr 15, 2012)

I'd like to have something with dual-core A15. However, it would be interesting to compare its performance+powersaving with 4+1 systems.


----------



## ill peripheral (Apr 16, 2012)

ooan836 said:


> In some cases dual core processors can actually be faster than processors with quad core...

Click to collapse



Not to mention more power efficient.


----------



## bocrazy (Apr 16, 2012)

So newer games may like the quad core better, but like the 1st response, most of the time i dont think you would need it, and then the extra umph would kill battery...


----------



## Skyღ (Apr 16, 2012)

JunyuT. said:


> people would tell you to get the quad, but personally I wouldn't cause
> a : No app needs THAT much power yet, ( I might be wrong here. )
> b : Battery life.

Click to collapse



What you say is correct , because people tend to buy quad processors for gaming .


----------



## exb0 (Apr 16, 2012)

Skyღ said:


> What you say is correct , because people tend to buy quad processors for gaming .

Click to collapse



If someone were to make a game that needs quad core, they're stupid. The fact is no one would make quad core apps now cause the industry is dominated by single and dual cores. If they make an app that needs quad core, single and dual core users can't use it. Thus earning less for them. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium


----------



## Josuhu (Apr 16, 2012)

Dual core is best for now


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Akhil (Apr 16, 2012)

Always go for the best technology, coz in future apps will be available for quad core and even if u dnt play games , u should go for quad  core..

Sent from my Dell Streak using xda premium


----------



## nativestranger (Apr 19, 2012)

I am planning to upgrade to the htc one x because of quad core but upon trying it out, I frankly cannot tell feel any difference in speed between my single core sensation xl and the one x. I even can swear that the xl is snappier navigating around the phones interface and menus. I also disappointed that internet is laggy on the one x especially pinch zoom and that scrolling is delayed response at times. If nobody told me that this is a quad core device i would not know because it doesnt feel any faster at all!


----------



## charmthief88 (Apr 19, 2012)

Nit3m4re said:


> The Padfone does look interesting, I remember reading about it a while ago. But its not looking promising that it'll arrive in the UK any time soon and chances are I won't be able to get it on a good contract anyway over here.
> 
> I really want the Note tbh but it just seems like it'll be outdated very quickly with Exynos 5250 coming out at some point and S4 already being out. Just a waiting game now, if they would only just announce what's in the pipeline for us I can at least justify why I am still hanging on to my SGS haha.

Click to collapse



Which is why I like sreza's attempt to highlight the padphone and hence krait, a brilliant device combination being too easily overlooked because it wasn't quad core or the next galaxy s.  Now I don't think krait smashes tegra as described (* I also take all benchmarks with a grain of salt*). Krait I heard has power leakage issues at 28mn because it has not taken all the a15 architectural advantages. This lowers the advantage of the dynamic voltage.
Also in one of those extremetech articles, it was mentioned that the ICS may not maximize the advantage of dynamic voltage as well.

If you look at the _Engadget_ review of One X vs One S Battery life is better on the S, 1.5 better hours (One S= 8, One X = 6.5)with video and regular use was  13.5h (One S) to 12.5h (One X). This difference *could* be factored somewhat by a smaller screen with less pixel density but the One S has a slightly smaller battery too.  The krait beats the tegra 3 on tests where 4 cores are not an advantage, but not usually by much. The Tegra 3 kills,  when all cores are taken into consideration. 

But as sreza says the apps are yet to be designed for that. As Apple, Moto, and Samsung push things/hardware and they likely will; be it a year down the track or more.  Apps then will be better coded/designed for multicore, larger ram and HD. 

But both the One S and One X are disappointing to me not for choice of quad or dual core, but because because they follow the trend of ditching removable batteries and micro sd cards.  Again heeeello beautiful padfone, although I may not have the money to buy a combo yet 

Also I'll second the voice of another earlier, My optimized modded single core Galaxy S handles quite well, I believe the dual core phones will continue to be quite relevant.  Which makes me again think maybe intel has something with medfield, however I know the ARM advantages of power efficiency and am taking a 'wait and see' view point with medfield.

----However-----
 All this debate is more academic than practical until you see real life comparisons.  I remember anandtech and other sites showing the Apple 4s killing a stock SGS2 on GB siting sunspyder and other benchmarks.  However was this the case. Look at this in depth comparison:

http://www.smartphoneenvy.com/apple/face-off-samsung-galaxy-s-ii-vs-apple-iphone-4s/

That means more to me than benchmarks.

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 PM ----------




peacekeeper05 said:


> Lol. Why the need to quote the whole engadget? I never said everyone is saying the One X has better battery life
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA

Click to collapse



It didn't hurt for sreza whom you quoted to do that as the engadget review was being distorted earlier on in the thread. Also he was addressing the point, allowing people to see both the screen size and battery size and the respective results.


----------



## nyteblayde (Apr 19, 2012)

Quad core is fast but consumes slightly more battery then dual core.


----------



## monkor (Apr 19, 2012)

My take is that quad core is somewhat pointless at this time. It's nice to have all the bells and whistles of the latest and greatest technology, but if that's an android phone, then consider this:

If the quad core phone comes out now, and it comes stock with ICS (which can utilize the dual-cores very well), then it's stock OS isn't going to be built to maximize the quad-cores. You'd have to wait for an entirely new OS to come out, hope that it actually reaches your phone, and wait even longer for it to be released in order to have a fully functioning stock OS which maximizes the potential of your phone.

Even people with older dual-core phones right now are seeing this; being forgotten by HTC, Motorola, or Samsung because their phone (while just as or more powerful than most) is older, and is not promised an OS update.

So yeah, I'd say stick to dual-core for now. But if you're due for an upgrade in a year or so, then move on to quad-core


----------



## arpit85 (Apr 21, 2012)

1.)Quadcore will be fully and optimally utilized by the *September update of          Android - JELLYBEAN*
2.)Battery power is not a big issue for quadcore phones.
3.)Galaxy note price is at par Htc One X


----------



## Alaa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quad-core seems pointless now, yes, but I guess people would regret it when they buy a dual-core phone now and find out that most applications/games would run way faster on quad-core in 6 months or so.


----------



## Genghiz93 (Apr 21, 2012)

The dual core is enough for now and i don't know where you can you use the all power of quad core.


----------



## lvcio (May 30, 2012)

Just BUY HUAWEI ASCEND D QUAD only 580 Bux, 3G PentaBand, just 4.5", 720p Screen Res, IPS screen. . . FOR ONLY 580$ https://negrielectronics.com/huawei-ascend-d-quad-unlocked-metallic-black.html

#FckIt #FckItAll

That, or just wait... Android 5.0 Jellybean is near


----------



## saywhatt (May 30, 2012)

dual core's fine.. it gives you everything you need but the battery sucks. i bet if we'd get quadcore.. the battery would suck even more -.-


----------



## scuzzbag87 (May 30, 2012)

saywhatt said:


> dual core's fine.. it gives you everything you need but the battery sucks. i bet if we'd get quadcore.. the battery would suck even more -.-

Click to collapse



I like having the best and battery life does not matter to me. Buy some fake batteries on Ebay problem solved. That's just me. Give me quad core exynos (yes it kills anything even that dual core s4 krait) 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using XDA


----------



## Allanitomwesh (May 30, 2012)

lvcio said:


> Just BUY HUAWEI ASCEND D QUAD only 580 Bux, 3G PentaBand, just 4.5", 720p Screen Res, IPS screen. . . FOR ONLY 580$ https://negrielectronics.com/huawei-ascend-d-quad-unlocked-metallic-black.html
> 
> #FckIt #FckItAll
> 
> That, or just wait... Android 5.0 Jellybean is near

Click to collapse



Sadly he is right. That's the only quad core I'm considering. 

Imetumwa kutoka U8150 kutumia XDA


----------



## saywhatt (May 30, 2012)

scuzzbag87 said:


> I like having the best and battery life does not matter to me. Buy some fake batteries on Ebay problem solved. That's just me. Give me quad core exynos (yes it kills anything even that dual core s4 krait)
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using XDA

Click to collapse



i bought samsung's 2000 mAh actually )) battery life extended up to 20%


----------



## Net0o (May 30, 2012)

quadcore for better performance but less battery life-.-


----------



## faridsarvar (May 30, 2012)

Dual core


----------



## 11secEVO (May 30, 2012)

I want the 8 core phone baby


----------



## Akatosh (May 30, 2012)

11secEVO said:


> I want the 8 core phone baby

Click to collapse



Haha same I'm waiting for the Samsung galaxy sIIII

Sent from my Sensation using XDA


----------



## Allanitomwesh (May 30, 2012)

sensation lover said:


> Haha same I'm waiting for the Samsung galaxy sIIII
> 
> Sent from my Sensation using XDA

Click to collapse











11secEVO said:


> I want the 8 core phone baby

Click to collapse



Good luck with the long wait.

Imetumwa kutoka U8150 kutumia XDA


----------



## XDeviateX (May 31, 2012)

Quad, be(C)ause fou(R) is (A)lways better than two (P)rocessors, except the battery life. People were saying the same thing about the pc procs.


----------



## jonneymendoza (May 31, 2012)

is the quad core on the ps vita faster then the one x?


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Allanitomwesh (May 31, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> is the quad core on the ps vita faster then the one x?

Click to collapse



PS Vita isn't a phone. That's like comparing a motorbike with a car.

Imetumwa kutoka U8150 kutumia XDA


----------



## jonneymendoza (May 31, 2012)

Allanitomwesh said:


> PS Vita isn't a phone. That's like comparing a motorbike with a car.
> 
> Imetumwa kutoka U8150 kutumia XDA

Click to collapse



They are both quad cores. i wanna know which cpu is faster


----------



## Allanitomwesh (May 31, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> They are both quad cores. i wanna know which cpu is faster

Click to collapse



The one x is faster.

Imetumwa kutoka U8150 kutumia XDA


----------



## redoregon (May 31, 2012)

If you're not a gamer, stay with the dual.  You don't really need the power of a quad.  By the next time you upgrade, quads may be the norm, but right now they're just an extra expense.


----------



## Mysliqk (Jun 1, 2012)

I think that duo core is enough for work and games. Maybe next year we will need power of quad core


----------



## Epeira (Jun 3, 2012)

Dual.core, if you not must conquer the world.


----------



## jonneymendoza (Jun 14, 2012)

Allanitomwesh said:


> The one x is faster.
> 
> Imetumwa kutoka U8150 kutumia XDA

Click to collapse



Proof? 

Sent from my HTC One X using XDA


----------



## Allanitomwesh (Jun 15, 2012)

jonneymendoza said:


> Proof?
> 
> Sent from my HTC One X using XDA

Click to collapse



1gig ram and better gpu.

Sent from my Ideos using XDA


----------



## carbonize (Jun 15, 2012)

Allanitomwesh said:


> 1gig ram and better gpu.
> 
> Sent from my Ideos using XDA

Click to collapse



That's not proof, that's just specifications. It also completely ignores the original question of which CPU is faster.


----------



## lvcio (Jun 15, 2012)

carbonize said:


> That's not proof, that's just specifications. It also completely ignores the original question of which CPU is faster.

Click to collapse



Its more, Wanna see it or not xP!

The other thing is, you dont have 6-10 companies developing games for ONL one specs and all standard eviroment(Vita) than developing for 20 or plus Brands, Specs diferents, many procesor, chipsets, etc(Android)

Its just like, develop Console(PS3,360) game, and other is Develop PC Game

As result, the games on PC that are REally good made, They Rock and FTW any console game


----------



## Allanitomwesh (Jun 15, 2012)

carbonize said:


> That's not proof, that's just specifications. It also completely ignores the original question of which CPU is faster.

Click to collapse



The nvidia tegra 3 is clocked higher @1.5ghz vs 800mhz
It has 1gb to work with vs 512mb
It has a slightly weaker gpu in the ulp geforce vs SGX543MP4+.

BUT

One is a phone and the other is a gaming console. Obviously the gaming console is optimized for gaming. Put android on your vita and run a benchmark. 

Sent from my Ideos using XDA


----------



## Karim.younus (Jun 15, 2012)

Well, personally I think a higher clock rate is better than a dual or quad core for gaming but as you dont need that extra power. You can do with dual core or even single core.


----------



## shadowroru (Jun 15, 2012)

Ill say dual core, Android is not optimized for quad core yet...


----------



## sinweiy (Jun 16, 2012)

i am more concern when you install more apps into the phone and it start to lag later down the road.


----------



## vampir4997 (Jun 16, 2012)

sinweiy said:


> i am more concern when you install more apps into the phone and it start to lag later down the road.

Click to collapse



I think that has more to do with ram then processing power

Sent from my PG06100 using xda premium


----------



## Nigeldg (Jun 16, 2012)

sinweiy said:


> i am more concern when you install more apps into the phone and it start to lag later down the road.

Click to collapse



That's to do with the amount of free RAM and can very easily be managed. Simply kill tasks which you aren't using and make sure you have at least a little free RAM. If I can manage with a 1GHz 512/403Mb RAM HD2 then I'm sure any dual or quad core phone would do the same without a hitch.


----------



## olyloh6696 (Jun 16, 2012)

IMO, single to dual = huge jump.
Dual to quad = smaller.

Desire S • Fallout V2.0.0 • xda premium


----------



## NV-3D (Jun 16, 2012)

*If Qualcomm was to develope a Quadcore...*



olyloh6696 said:


> IMO, single to dual = huge jump.
> Dual to quad = smaller.
> 
> Desire S • Fallout V2.0.0 • xda premium

Click to collapse



honestly i feel - considering the S4 is keeping up with the Nvidia quadcores on most benches that

if Qualcomm was to dev and manufacture a quadcore - wed have leaps in performance 

especially if used in conjunction with linaro


----------



## banzer_kadaj (Jun 17, 2012)

quad core or dual core i will choose dual core.. android not yet ready to accept quadcore..
but ram is still needed.. and cpu processing.. it will make a balanced...
background application for system running in smartphone make me sick...  only 1/2 available RAM can we use..


----------



## Phalanx7621 (Jun 17, 2012)

Pffft screw em both. I'm getting me an octacore baby wheeewww 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bdfull3r (Mar 21, 2012)

Im thinking of a new phone but im perplexed.  Should i get a dual core now like the Note or the Nexus or should i try and wait for a quad core?  I dont usually game pn my phone,  i have a Galaxy Tab for that.  

Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk


----------



## Allanitomwesh (Jun 17, 2012)

Phalanx7621 said:


> Pffft screw em both. I'm getting me an octacore baby wheeewww
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

Click to collapse



Loool





Sent from my U8150 using XDA


----------



## lion<3 (Jun 17, 2012)

Phalanx7621 said:


> Pffft screw em both. I'm getting me an octacore baby wheeewww
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

Click to collapse



hahahaha.. LOL!!


----------



## jojobanin (Aug 24, 2012)

dual core


----------



## thamvmk (Oct 4, 2012)

As long as responsive. 

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using xda app-developers app


----------



## profmed (Oct 4, 2012)

Maybe Dual core


----------



## Hippoman13 (Oct 5, 2012)

Honestly a dual core should be fine. Android is more optimized for 2 cores technically, but the most important factor at this point is the gpu

Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda premium


----------



## sbektic (Jul 13, 2014)

OCTA CORE


----------

