Qualcomm Does 2.5 GHz Quad-Core SoC in 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

leo2kp

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2006
126
0
18,640
4
"It’s not about how many cores or how many gigabytes, it’s how well you can optimise the system,"

...coming from a guy selling 2.5GHz quad-core phone CPUs.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Was that a crack at Google's Android OS?
If it wasn't before you just made it one. But I think its true. My Atrix 4g is not nearly as smooth as my friends HD7. Yet is has a dual core.
 

jprahman

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
43
0
18,580
1
Honestly, ARM SOCs like this one make me wonder how long it'll be before ARM starts to move into traditional x86 market segments. Between Windows 8 supporting ARM and more powerful chips like this one many of the reasons ARM hasn't moved into the low-end PC space are going away.
 

southernshark

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2009
310
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]Honestly, ARM SOCs like this one make me wonder how long it'll be before ARM starts to move into traditional x86 market segments. Between Windows 8 supporting ARM and more powerful chips like this one many of the reasons ARM hasn't moved into the low-end PC space are going away.[/citation]

Apple is already planning for ARM laptops and MS8 will work with either ARM or x86 so we will see ARM laptops next year, and maybe even some cheap desktops in ARM. Intel has a real challenge here if they aren't careful. ARM has some very innovative and powerful companies pushing it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]Apple is already planning for ARM laptops and MS8 will work with either ARM or x86 so we will see ARM laptops next year, and maybe even some cheap desktops in ARM. Intel has a real challenge here if they aren't careful. ARM has some very innovative and powerful companies pushing it.[/citation]

Just because its 2.5 ghz and a quad core does not mean it will have good performance. Looking at Nvidia's roadmap they think their next gen quad core will be around a core 2 duo in performance, still a very very long way from Ivy Bridge.

Windows and OSX software for X86 wont run on ARM unless emulated and then suffer a performance hit for that, so Intel will still have a huge advantage there. Then you have Intel dominating with process technology and bringing out 22nm 3d transistor chips which will shrink the power usage of Intel's chips, maybe by enough to make them power comparable to ARM designs running at clock frequencies high enough to make them suitable for a good PC experience. Intel through innovative process technology, power reduction, speed increases and shit loads of money might due to ARM what they have been doing to AMD all these years.
 

aftcomet

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2010
162
0
18,630
0
I'm not an engineer or anything but doesn't the architecture matter as well? It could be an octo-core running at 3GHz and still be slower than an i3.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm not an engineer or anything but doesn't the architecture matter as well? It could be an octo-core running at 3GHz and still be slower than an i3.
Sooo... we need benchmarks. Can anyone provide?
 

jprahman

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
43
0
18,580
1
My point is not that ARM will replace x86, that will never happen in the higher end space. i.e. servers, desktops, and most laptops. I also don't think that ARM will ever approach the performance of the most recent x86 processors either. So many of us here want the most powerful CPUs we can get for gaming, video editing, bragging rights, not to mention the compute intensive tasks people run on PC for their day jobs. But most people just want to browse the web, play farmville, and watch some videos. You don't need a Sandy Bridge processor to run chrome or firefox, or do any of those other things.

That is one of the reasons PC sales, especially desktops, are down. Why buy a big bulky desktop when you can buy a lightweight notebook, or tablet that does everything the average users wants to do, with the advantage of portability. It's the netbook/nettop/very lightweight notebook area where ARM will gain ground. Not because it's it fastest you can get, but because it is fast enough to fulfill the needs of 90% of users at lower cost and lower power consumption.
 

sgtopmobile

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2010
20
0
18,560
0
[[citation][nom]aftcomet[/nom]I'm not an engineer or anything but doesn't the architecture matter as well? It could be an octo-core running at 3GHz and still be slower than an i3.[/citation]

bulldozer WIIL BE ONE HELL OF EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING
 

stingstang

Distinguished
May 11, 2009
294
0
18,940
5
[citation][nom]WhysoBluepandabear[/nom]I hear Jesus himself designed Bulldozer....[/citation]
I hear AMD finished Bulldozer last year, they are just too afraid of it's awesomeness.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
176
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]Just because its 2.5 ghz and a quad core does not mean it will have good performance. Looking at Nvidia's roadmap they think their next gen quad core will be around a core 2 duo in performance, still a very very long way from Ivy Bridge.Windows and OSX software for X86 wont run on ARM unless emulated and then suffer a performance hit for that, so Intel will still have a huge advantage there. Then you have Intel dominating with process technology and bringing out 22nm 3d transistor chips which will shrink the power usage of Intel's chips, maybe by enough to make them power comparable to ARM designs running at clock frequencies high enough to make them suitable for a good PC experience. Intel through innovative process technology, power reduction, speed increases and shit loads of money might due to ARM what they have been doing to AMD all these years.[/citation]Yes I agree too but you also forgot that ARM does not have 125-130w TDP. So until someone come up a 130w high performance ARM CPU, we cant really judge how good ARM will be against the x86 yet. The only clear advantages I see on x86 is the legacy support from all the existing software.

 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]jaywalker512[/nom]Sooo... we need benchmarks. Can anyone provide?[/citation]

its kind of a trade off.
arm = LOW POWER, and by low i mean insanely low... but does less per clock for that.
x86 = power hungry, but does far more per clock.

arm needs to have specialized software to full take advantage of it, while x86 can brute force bad coding and be usefull...

basically, if you make it for arm, it will work and be low power, such as a media center and specific codecs, but you honestly arent going to be running photoshop on it.

the reason that its being looked at for servers, is because its low power. google for instance, costs i think it was 130000 per hour in power alone, i did the math a long time ago when they talked about what they used for 1 service. if you had to have 8 arms to do what 1 of the other cpus does, it would be cost effective because the 8 arms would out do any of the competition on power usage. and because you wouldn't need as much cooling, if any, you could make it more compact, saveing space while still preforming at what you need it to, with less of a power draw.
 
G

Guest

Guest
ARM are light years behind Intel, Amd & nVidia. The mobile phone CPU's are specifically designed for a certain purpose. As previously mentioned micro-architecture of the CPU is the backbone of performance coupled with various instruction sets, SSE4, 4.1, 4.2 .etc
 

JeanLuc

Distinguished
Oct 21, 2002
64
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]russianphysicist[/nom]ARM are light years behind Intel, Amd & nVidia. The mobile phone CPU's are specifically designed for a certain purpose. As previously mentioned micro-architecture of the CPU is the backbone of performance coupled with various instruction sets, SSE4, 4.1, 4.2 .etc[/citation]

Nonsense, ARM are market leaders for low cost, low power CPU's while by the same token Intel 's Atom line is rubbish in comparison (power consumption is to high) and AMD doesn't even have an ultra mobile strategy.
 

pcwlai

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2003
23
0
18,560
0
Apple is not perceived as creating good and new technologies but iOS is better optimized to create an overall better performing iPhone 4.

The Retina Display is still not found in those high end smartphones using Android because of poor operating system design.

No matter how good the CPU, it is still not as good as using the GPU for window composition, graphics rendering and font rendering. Both Google and Microsoft does not design their mobile system to better utilize the pass experience and current technologies even they can create the mobile operating system from scratch. Such a shame that, only Apple is doing the right technology, for developers and consumers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
rutherfordsc Streaming Video & TVs 1
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 3
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 7
G Streaming Video & TVs 14
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 49
G Streaming Video & TVs 10
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 9
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 35
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 20
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 12
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 14
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 18
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 11
Tomsguiderachel Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY