Intel says Android not ready for multiple-core processors
0. phoneArena posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:05
According to Intel, tests that the chip producer has run show that not only is Android not taking advantage of having a multiple core processor, it could actually be a detriment to the performance of Google's open-source OS...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. ajac09 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:06 18 1
wow guess the speed diffrence between my epic 4g and my epic touch is my imagination :(
2. RORYREVOLUTION posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:12 6 4
The fact that The Epic Touch has the exynos processor with 1GB of RAM plays a huge part of it. The exynos processor is one of the most powerful processors there is in the smartphone world, dual core or quad core, it doesn't matter. But Touchwiz also is way more optimized than it used to be as well.
4. ajac09 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:20 3 0
which also is a dual core and the ram helps out for sure but I dont buy that dual cores decrease effincney. If anything performance should be the same if not improved.
90. Sangeet posted on 11 Jun 2012, 01:08 0 3
I think the benchmarks would be the correct explaination to this guy from Intel (Mike Bell)
5. Droid_X_Doug posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:27 3 0
You just aren't trying to get Apple's mobile chip business.
35. cheetah2k posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:18 10 4
Intel are only complaining because for the first time in history, they're doing it wrong....
77. anywherehome posted on 10 Jun 2012, 23:21 2 0
yes, just crying because their bribing is not effective everywhere:
107. remixfa posted on 11 Jun 2012, 09:24 2 0
its actually not the first time. They have failed every time they went into the ultra low voltage category. If this time is the same or different remains to be seen.
They keep trying to jam big PC technology into small chips, and it doesnt work like that. Some people are slow to learn.
101. AbhiD posted on 11 Jun 2012, 05:53 0 3
What intel said is more of regarding optimization of multi core processors...
A single core intel mobile processor beats dual core A9 arm processors with huge margin and is almost equivalent(and even greater in some aspects) to dual core A15 arm processors.
This is called true optimization!!!
134. saiki4116 posted on 11 Jun 2012, 14:55 0 0
what about power optimizations,that's why still the processor is not mass produced.the testing is based on 2.3.4 and the fact is that,SIMD are introduced with gingerbread,but the manufacturers aren't patient enough to wait for gingerbread and release their phones...
104. happygaps posted on 11 Jun 2012, 06:23 1 0
Bad comparison. Besides different OS version and double the RAM, one is the old A8 at 1ghz (slower than even snapdragon S1) the other is A9 at 1.2ghz. Even with the same amount of cores the A9 cpu would be heaps faster.
A better comparison is between the Sensation XE and Sensation XL. Where they use the same architecture. If my mate didn't tell me the XL is single core i wouldn't have guessed. There just isn't any performance difference running it side by side with my XE.
3. doubler86 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:18 17 1
I can't think of any dual core processor phones that don't have 2.3.4 It sounds like they are just making excuses to why they are so late to the Mobile game.
18. ph00ny posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:22 2 3
but compared to the ARM counterparts, they match up nicely in performance
x86 has never lacked firepower. They just can't compete in power efficiency
135. saiki4116 posted on 11 Jun 2012, 14:57 0 0
why you are thumbed down for such a valid comment
138. remixfa posted on 17 Jun 2012, 21:04 0 0
because morons dont understand what he's saying. thats why.
31. Greyhunter6 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:13 1 0
He was refering to the dual core phones which came out before the 2.3.4 update was released. Those phones now have 2.3.4 or a later update.
97. bomariam1 posted on 11 Jun 2012, 02:58 1 1
If this is the case then it's an old news.
let him check the samsung s3.
102. happygaps posted on 11 Jun 2012, 06:10 0 0
The in original inquirer article, Intel makes no mention of the distinction between 2.3.4 and later phones and earlier phones. Gsmarena also did not mention this. I think phonearena will need to show us where they got that info. I think intel in no way implies that only phones older than 2.3.4 aren't able to take advantage of multi cores.
6. lzsbleach posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:31 4 0
I would like to see someone challenge this guy on what hes saying
11. Whodaboss posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:56 5 0
I believe this is old news. Reports of dual core phones not using all cores have been reported before. And it has also been speculated in some cases it's all been a marketing ploy... tell the masses they have dual cores even for that matter quad cores and they'll jump at it thinking their device is operating at twice or four times the speed. Not realizing their device is not optimized to use all the power it has. But what the consumer doesn't know doesn't hurt em'. But hey, they can always brag about having a top of the line device.
12. JC557 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:57 4 1
Hell, it's a possibility he's saying that to cover his own ass because Intel isn't ready for multiple core processors that can compete on the mobile front.
Then there's the possibility of him trying to get Apple's business...
103. happygaps posted on 11 Jun 2012, 06:13 0 0
This just doesn't make sense. If what intel says is true and multi cores aren't beneficial to android then why the hell would they want to release a quad core smart phone Soc? To join the marketing crowd or shoot itself in the foot? Secondly you think with all their resources and engineering prowess intel wasn't able to create a multi-core android soc if they wanted to?
17. vqc61 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:17 2 1
I think Whoaboss hit the nail on the head. It's a huge marketing ploy to sell hardware. As an engineer, I completely understand that having more cores doesn't mean anything unless the OS is optimized to work with them. Mike Bell is the GM of Intel's Mobile and Communications Group. He (or Intel) wouldn't make a statement like this without the backup of their multi-billion dollar resources. You can bet they have performed exhaustive testing and benchmarking before making such a statement. If you want to challenge him, you'd better have done the same and can show the results to the contrary. As popular as Android has become, it's easy to forget that it's the newest kid in the block, which means it had the least amount of time to evolve and develop. Besides, software has always been a step or two behind hardware.
50. jroc74 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:09 2 0
Anandtech did a a review of Tegra 2 phones...and said since 2.2 Android could take advantage of multiple cores:
I dont think it was the OS that wasnt seeing both cores...as so many claim 2.3 doesnt use multiple cores...yet if I open Syetem Panel app on my RAZR....and go to the cpu section of the app....and swipe up n down you will see both cores show activity. If I stop it shows one core with activity.
I think Android itsself and the apps wasnt taking better advantage of it.
57. jroc74 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:19 0 1
But other factors effect smoothness, snappiness IIRC: coding of the OS, file systems, read/write access, etc. Some of the custom UI's did a better job at it than stock Android in some areas. Some manufactures did a better job of it than others.
One perfect example if the file system issues that caused GS1 phones to lag vs. other phones that came out around the same time. That also lead to worse read/write access vs the Droid X1...IIRC.
Hell...just changing the launcher on the Droid X1 before the GB update made home screen scrolling alot better. After the GB update....home screen scrolling became alot better IMO. And Blur on the RAZR is even better.
I just think Android and manufactures didnt take better advantage of it. Case in point: scrolling on the iPhone and WP7 in 2010. Its alot better on Android now than in 2010 vs those 2 phones.
92. neutralguy posted on 11 Jun 2012, 01:14 1 3
why don't you? if you disagree with him, show your proofs. He's an expert, you're just a commentator.
7. FAW-Q posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:33 4 21
In other words, why waste perfectly good hardware on a crap OS.
8. leftheodo posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:37 8 0
Yes we know the iPhone 4s has a dual core CPU but we are not talking about iOS here!
10. eDiesel posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:53 4 2
Is it me or does ios look like an android app drawer that shifts horizontally.
what a pathetic os. User experience my butt....
40. Ivan6479 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:38 2 2
"In other words, why waste perfectly good hardware on a crap OS." says the guy that most likely owns and iPhone, which only has an 800mHz dual core. Don't hate because Apple is playing catch up. LOL
66. Berzerk000 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:32 1 0
Want to know how to get the iOS experience on an Android device with only 1 button? Press the applications button. BOOM! iOS on Android. iOS is a glorified app launcher
9. sithman (banned) posted on 10 Jun 2012, 18:43 2 1
I think mike bell knows what he's talking about
15. Hunt3rj2 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:12 0 0
Some implementations weren't great, but as long as every core is on it's own power plane it's no big deal, just power gate the cores you don't use.
67. Berzerk000 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:34 0 0
Like what Nvidia did with the Tegra 3, it actually has 5 cores, and it only uses the 5th (or, companion) core most of the time. Unless you go into a processor intensive action, then the other 4 cores turn on
19. sprockkets posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:33 1 0
Funny, I don't see any thread scheduler improvements here:
So what this moron is claiming is that the Linux scheduler in, you know, Linux, was not capable of handling multiple cores, you know, the same kernel used in desktops for dual cores, quad cores, and insane amount of cores for years.
FYI the kernel version used there was 2.6.35
21. sprockkets posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:42 1 0
Corrected link, stupid edit system not allowing edits if someone else posts afterward.
Oh, and I'm sure dual cores helps out when I'm using the GPS with Google Navigation (you losers with iphones WISH you had it!) and Pandora is playing in the background, with neither of them stuttering. Stupid ftards at Intel, there are plenty of good reasons for dual cores.
42. sprockkets posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:44 0 0
I give up, the stupid system here separates the l in html for whatever reason.
20. cj100570 posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:37 1 0
Sounds to me like Intel doesn't have a multiple-core processor that's ready for Android.
22. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:52 4 8
Wow well this is very interesting. Maybe the sheep are the ones buying into higher specs for processors and cameras that don't actually improve performance. This explains why dual core android phones are still laggy. It lends a lot to the argument it is a half baked OS.
25. tedkord posted on 10 Jun 2012, 19:56 1 3
Then how do you explain my single core phone having zero lag?
And, since iOS crashes significantly more than Android, I guess that makes it quarter baked.
28. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:03 2 4
Well I've tried lots of android phones myself and they ALL lag. Also all the experts agree that iOS is smoother and more stable.
The study you refer to we're some 3rd party apps shortly after iOS 5 released so they just needed to be optimized.
You're phone has zero lag huh? Well I'll trust the experts while you convince the peanut gallery.
30. tedkord posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:13 2 3
Interesting. You want the experts. Except when it comes to every expert review of the One X and SGSIII saying zero lag - then you want to go by one anonymous forum user no one has ever heard of
There's a demo of my Thunderbolt. Please point out the lag to me. (Sorry for the poor quality of the video, my camera us busted so I had to use a webcam)
33. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:15 2 3
Sooty I've personally used the Thunderbolt and there's definitely lag. I guess you just don't know any better.
36. tedkord posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:22 1 1
Did you look at the video? I posted actual video, you're claiming your "experience." Which do you think is better evidence.
44. Non_Sequitur posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:46 1 1
My old iPod Touch was a laggy, force closing mess. Every time the battery got to 20% or lower, I couldn't even open the browser or a game (or anything involving internet connection) without it shutting off on me. It was also very laggy in regular performance. Did this when I updated to iOS 5 as well. The study that said iOS is laggier and less stable than Android did NOT apply to simply a few apps.
Of COURSE the Thunderbolt is going to lag, it's a couple years old with an old, heavy version of Sense. Newest Android phones from about one uear back and forward don't have any lag at all. If all you do it play with ONE Android phone at Best Buy for five minutes, then it won't do much good for you.
48. tedkord posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:01 2 1
Yeah, I work with a guy with an iPhone4. He's generally happy with it, but it lags at times, and force closes a lot. He always jokes that the iPhone is so advanced, it knows when he's done with an app better than he does.
He's not a sheep - he actually would like to go Android (for the larger screen, and what he's seen from mine), but he's got so much money tied up in iTunes media/apps/games, that he feels stuck. He did not, however, go for the 4s. He recognized that it was a very small increment from his 4.
32. sprockkets posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:15 0 2
I can show you an iphone3g with ios4.x and an iphone4 with ios5 that "lag". So fing what?
At best buy the old cheap Samsung wp7 device was animating much slower than the Lumia 900 next to it. So what?
I may have some lag. You'll never have google navigation, ever. Take your pick.
37. tedkord posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:25 4 1
All that matters to Taco is the little Apple logo.
38. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:32 2 8
I did make my pick. A stable, optimized OS with long term support and quality apps instead of google navigation.
45. tedkord posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:48 3 2
And, I made my pick. A stable, smooth, optimized OS that has great apps, which I can run more than one of at a time, which I can make to look any way I want, which I can tether (wired or wirelessly), which I can drag and drop any music, videos or other files to without having to go through any other program.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the SGSIII and RAZR HD are like. I have an upgrade right now, but I'm waiting to see the newest generation, then I'll decide if I want either.
See, that's the difference between you and me. I have no idea what my next phone will be. You knew when you got your last iPhone, you'r next phone would be one.
62. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:27 1 1
Not really I was a blackberry user before I got the 3GS. Right now for me iOS is the best. Android has some cool features, but I'm not willing to give up my pleasant experience with my iPhone for that. When something's comes out that's worth switching too I will.
Last year I tried out the charge and thunderbolt. This year I have the Galaxy 7.7. I'm not impressed with the experience on android. Constant lag and bugs isn't worth it to me.
56. sprockkets posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:15 2 1
Oh, long term support and quality apps? Tell that to the people who bought siri before apple did on the 3GS and 4.
34. sprockkets posted on 10 Jun 2012, 20:17 1 2
And I can also show you an HTC Magic, aka the second android phone ever made with zero lag as well, on 192MB of ram and a sub 600mhz CPU.
Again, so what?
83. bayusuputra posted on 11 Jun 2012, 00:44 0 2
hahaha! of course iPhone doesn't lag! who gets lag in their app drawer? i may experience some lagginess in home screen full of live time widgets, 1 out of 10 times i scroll the home panels..
i forgot you don't have home screens or widgets!
84. taco50 (banned) posted on 11 Jun 2012, 00:46 1 2
Actually iPhone does have multiple home screens
86. Sniggly posted on 11 Jun 2012, 00:52 2 1
Yeah, otherwise known as the "app drawer."
By the way, I often do notice significant lag swiping from the app drawer to the search page. This happens even on new iPhones.
49. u-suck-more posted on 10 Jun 2012, 21:05 3 2
it could be bcos of the amount of apps u have on the phone, how much stuff u have in it and how much u use it. if u are just using the phone mainly for its basic functions and occasionally playing games and checking mail, of cos it wont lag. there is nth to really push the processor. every phone that supposedly has ''zero lag'' has lag. i own the Galaxy Note and honestly im quite disappointed with the amount of lag i get on the phone. i use my phone almost every hour to use twitter, whatsapp, listen to music, play games and etc and the amount of times this one month old phone has lagged/crash is amazing. in fact, it lags worse than my LG Optimus 3D! and that really surprised me. considering tt the Note has a 1.4gHz processor with a gig of RAM (highest available RAM for user is 838MB) while the LG only has a 1gHz processor with 512MB of RAM (highest available RAM on the LG for the user was 198MB). so yea, it just doesnt mean that just because it is a multi core android device so it wont lag. it very much depends on how u use the phone and the amount of task intensive apps u have. it doesnt matter what OS u use, chances are, u will come across lag.
now before u call me and apple fanboy or any other bull sh*t, please note that i have NEVER used an iPhone and have NEVER owned an iPhone. all my smartphones are android (HTC Desire, LG Optimus 2x, LG Optimus 3D, Samsung Galaxy Note) and one windows mobile device (Samsung Omnia).