Qualcomm reportedly giving Samsung a deal on Snapdragon 805 for the Galaxy Note 4
0. phoneArena 08 Aug 2014, 09:52 posted on
The rumors surrounding the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 have long held that the device would be powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 805 SoC, and now it seems that we have confirmation. ZDNet Korea is claiming not only that the Note 4 will be using the Snapdragon 805, but that Qualcomm is giving Samsung a special deal on the chipsets...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
25. Iodine (Posts: 1101; Member since: 19 Jun 2014)
Because of inefficiency of tegra K1, it's impossible to put it into a smartphone, even at this size, without a heatsink.
68. vincelongman (Posts: 3317; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)
It would be possible with good engineering/design, though might mean the phone will have to be a extra mm or two thicker
Also Nvidia could underclock the K1 as well
AnandTech used GFXBench T-Rex benchmark to test the battery life of the new Shield Tablet
The 800/801/A7 get about 25~ fps, the K1 gets nearly 70 fps
The K1 had quite bad results when uncapped, since it was pushing nearly 70 fps compared to the others which are only pushing about 25 fps
When capped to 30 fps (still higher the ~25 fps) the Shield Tablet last longer than the Note 3 & Note Tab S 8.4
The K1's temps stayed under 50C, which is similar to the others
91. fireblade (Posts: 716; Member since: 27 Dec 2013)
too bad Asian version will get the hot & power hungry Exynos
2. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
why did you erased the "Is Android really 64-bit ready?" article?
7. CyberFalcon (Posts: 217; Member since: 17 Apr 2014)
11. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 1864; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
I saw the article too. But spamming isn't gonna do anything to help.
12. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
Bud, if these guys are willing to bash android every time they can, why can't they keep their word? removing the article was stupid, and their "neutrality" it's just BS
56. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
This is not spam. They should know that they should be responsible. No matter how much they are in love with Apple.
74. joey_sfb (Posts: 4747; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Let it go. Life is short to be chasing dark cloud besides 5 years I am using Symbian, 3 years ago I am using iOS.
Keep an open mind and use What you like best. Android has 84% market share and still growing due to high specs budget brands like XiaoMi.
5. SamDroid (unregistered)
Lol just drop it
Type '64 bit' in the search bar
16. Ashoaib (Posts: 3009; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
yes that article is removed and it should be bcoz it was helped by jakelee who is a very well known hater of android and samsung as well... jakelee always try to belittle android as much as he can... and he always try to make ios superior as much as he can...
every os has its pros n cons, we know that android is the best os so far which is avaliable for mobile phones... I was an ios user and I can assure that ios sucks more then any android
22. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Thank you very much.
Believe what you want to, the truth remains the same.
23. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
If the truth remains the same, why the article in which YOU helped was removed? Truth is different on each person. I'm based on facts.
28. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
I just provided some indisputable evidences, and someone panicked.
32. tedkord (Posts: 8296; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Or, somebody in charge realized they'd published an article with input from a troll who had been banned twice in the past month for being a troll.
36. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10208; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Someone panicked because half of the article wasn't true lol. JL fails again.
57. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
They have whole articles that are not true, but they don't remove them.
This time they must have made really fool of themselves.
75. joey_sfb (Posts: 4747; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
JakeLee is a well known Apple polisher in PA.
It's ok. We are who we are. Just enjoy what ever phone you have be happy. Just take PA as a source of gadgets news.
24. sgodsell (Posts: 2650; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)
Your right the truth remains the same. World wide Android still commands the majority of the sales around the globe with 85% of the sales. Its because Android offers great devices now that are inexpensive, like the moto g and others for a fraction of any iPhone. Just wise and frugal shoppers who knows what's best for them.
26. tedkord (Posts: 8296; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Yes, the truth does remain the same. It's a shame you're so often blinded to it by your love for Apple / hate for others.
29. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Aha, most apps are written in Java?
10~15% vs 85~90%.
I'd call the latter the *vast* majority.
Your definition may vary though.
30. tedkord (Posts: 8296; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
What? What are you even talking about? Where do you see anything about java in my post?
34. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
I've been telling this since almost a whole year : Most serious apps aren't written in Java on Android.
But you Androtakus kept telling that most apps are written in Java, thus making Android's transition smooth.
"Developers who care about their users don't use Java anymore."
Java sucks, and Android is nothing more than Linux with pre-installed Java vm.
Android will be 64-bit ready after 3~4 years from now on, and people purchasing the first 64-bit Android phones are morons.
46. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3806; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
"I've been telling this since almost a whole year : Most serious apps aren't written in Java on Android."
Jake may have an axe to grind against Android, but there is a lot of fact in this statement.
About 60% of the apps from large top-tier app makers are written in C/C++ for Android.
However, outside of this "top tier", the vast majority of Android apps are still in Java.
49. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
You are wrong. Maybe you didn't read the article before it vanished.
From the top 25 free, non-game apps, only three are Java apps.
That makes 88%, and it wouldn't look much differently if the research was extended to top 100.
Java sucks much worse than people might think. There are reasons why the devs avoid Java.
67. tedkord (Posts: 8296; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Let's say your numbers here are correct. So what? You don't think that these top app creators aren't already working on 64bit versions. That's why they release the sdk ahead of time. It's no different than what Apple faced.
You're an Apple evangelist, but you don't matter. Nobody cares about your love of all things Apple, and you're not converting anyone. Heck, you should have faith in Apple to convert people with their product, but you clearly don't.
85. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
No, they don't.
Why should they?
76. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3806; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
"You are wrong. Maybe you didn't read the article before it vanished."
I didn't see the article. The numbers I quoted are from an earlier study of a broader tier of applications.
The point still stands, though. Quite a few top Android apps are written in C/C++. Sometimes this is for performance or security, both of which are harder to attain using a VM runtime.
And for the record, Java does not suck. The mainstream JVM is hugely popular and quite performant. Dalvik, on the other hand, is old and creaky and not so performant.
86. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
88% of 25 top selling appd aren't written in Java while 85% of *all* apps are.
What does this mean?
1. You cannot write an app in Java and expect it to be competitive enough to make to the top position.
2. Devs of the top apps avoided Java for some reasons.
3. There are many many hello world like junks written in Java in the PlayStore.
Either the devs of the top apps are plain stupid or Java simply sucks.
I vote for the latter one.
47. nasznjoka (Posts: 380; Member since: 05 Oct 2012)
So which OS do you wanna compare with linux?
60. tedkord (Posts: 8296; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Hard to believe they banned such an unbiased, upstanding poster like you. Looking forward to your next vacation, hopefully permanent. You and Taco can hang out and tell each other how you told us how it is.
33. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
your hate is not gonna take u anywhere. You think that Apple is better by releasing a 64bit OS when several apps were not ready by the time, and are not even ready just yet? Apple took the risk by releasing a 64b OS. Android is technically doing the same. At the end the only ones who're gonna take advantage of this are the customers. Yes you're right, maybe iOS nor Android are ready to leap to 64b, but in the long run it'll make sense, because is the customer the one who's taking advantage of each platform. Different offerings are not bad at all.
35. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
What are you talking about?
Apple DID finish the transition already last year.
Android NEEDS 3~4 years from now on.
Fragmentation hurts really bad here.
37. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
I got your point. The problem is you're bashing Android for a build not even released yet. I'm 200% sure there will be a transition for most of the apps on GPlay, but what's the problem with it? Do you think we won't take advantage of those when ready?
43. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Just take a look at Apple AppStore. Most apps require iOS6 or above which means they most probably run in 64bit when the chip is a 64bit one.
And compare this to PlayStore. See something?
No, Google doesn't even tell you which minimum OS version is required.
You can check this manually with APKTOOL, et evoila, 80+% require the almost 4 years old Gingerbread or even Froyo.
How long will it take until KitKat, probably the minimum 64-bit viable version reaches the current status of Gingerbread?
3~4 years, that's the logical deduction.
Or do you honestly think the app devs will take the risk targeting KitKat or above for 64bit, ditching vast majority of the market share?
If then, keep dreaming.
44. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10208; Member since: 14 May 2012)
3-4 years lol. Go to Google's HQ and voice your opinion over there and see how hard they'll laugh at you. Seriously, we get you hate Samsung and Google, but good god back off the comment section.
45. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
"Or do you honestly think the app devs will take the risk targeting KitKat or above for 64bit, ditching vast majority of the market share?"
What do you think if I reverse you the question?
Do you think Apple devs will take the risk targeting iOS and 7 and above (64bits) ditching the vast majority of the market share, which includes iPhone 4 til 5C? Don't you think that at some point, devs STILL have to write apps in 32bit in order to add compatibility with previous versions?
And BTW you still haven't answered my question.
Do you think we won't take advantage of 64bit apps when ready?
48. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
When ready, yes.
The caveat is though, it will be ready in 3~4 years.
And why don't you take a visit at AppStore?
SnapChat, WhatsApp, and Hair Color Booth are the only non-game apps in top 30 that run in 32bit.
You'll also be surprised by the fact that about 40% of them even ask for iOS7 or above.
Fragmentation makes a huge difference here.
50. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
I can't go to an Apple's App Store, i just don't have an iPhone. And it's nice 40% of the apps are asking for iOS7. This means devices from Apple 4 till iPhone 5S and even all of the iPads are supported. Isn't that nice? Now, how many of those devices are 64b, and how many are not? (If you don't know the answer about 64b, that's only 3)
And what do you think about the questions I reversed you? Can you tell me how's gonna be that?
53. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
You need neither an iDevice nor iTunes :
Each app's requirement is at the bottom right.
Are you asking why the app devs won't support 64bit?
See? KitKat has a market share of less than 20%
If you target KitKat (probably mandatory for 64bit support just like iOS6), you lose 80+% of potential customers.
No one would dare that, for how long? Until KitKat or later reaches 60+% market share.
Fragmentation is a serious problem for Android.
iOS7+ has a market share of 90+%, and it goes 95+% for iOS6.
App devs can ditch the tiny minority and target their apps for iOS6+ which enables 64bit support.
They cannot do the same for Android. It would be suicidal for their business.
Google promises 100+ new, enhanced APIs for L. For what?
You buy a shiny new flagship with Android L, and the new APIs get hardly utilized by the devs during its lifespan. That's BS.
It's a completely different story for iOS. iPhone 5s users have been benefiting from the new APIs AND 64bit computing that came with iOS7 since almost one full year.
58. Antimio (Posts: 313; Member since: 11 Nov 2013)
That was a nice conversation. I cannot respond now BC I'm working, but I'm really amazed for all the things you know. I can tell you're a smart person. Or at least you did your homework. Again, no matter what platform you choose, you'll get benefits from each. I'll stick to my Nexus 4. Being honest with you, I don't even need 64b on this. Call it an outdated phone or whatever, I'm happy with it and getting the most of it. See you later, Jake Lee!
69. Ashoaib (Posts: 3009; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
what about iphone 4/4s users? can they take benefit of 64bit? when their Soc is not 64bit... if they can then I will consider all your reasoning very useful, otherwise android n ios are in a same boat that older versions/models cant take benefit and developers has to consider older versions/models when writing code
80. tedkord (Posts: 8296; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
You're right! It's impossible to have a 6bit and 32bit version of the same app, targeting each to the version they're downloaded to. It's like matter and antimatter, they can't exist together.
51. Armchair_Commentator (Posts: 222; Member since: 08 May 2014)
I'm honestly very surprised at the adoption rate of newer versions of android. I never really gave it much thought but when I read that even 7 months or so after release kitkat was only hitting the teens of adoption rate.
its nice having a small lineup where you know when your next update is coming and that it will work with which devices.
Whereas with my note 2 my rollout was both phone and carrier dependent.
70. RebelwithoutaClue (Posts: 2224; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
64 bit came with iOS 7 not 6. And there are still many older iPhone/iPads out there, so a dev needs to support 32 and 64 bit. Fragmentation???
Also Google Playstore does tell you the minimum Android version required. Every single app out there, says minimum required Android version. Which is usually 4.0 btw, not the 4 years old Gb or Froyo.
3-4 years is YOUR conclusion not the logical conclusion. Especially since you have been off on so many accounts.
And since NDK is C/C++ devs can compile the app in 32 bit and 64 bit quite easily. So it wont be that hard to target both newer and older models.
73. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Fragmentation? Ever heard of fat binary?
It takes about 30 seconds for iOS devs making their app 64-bit ready.
And about iOS6, Apple set it as the minimum requirement for the apps to be 64-bit compatible. Devs have to target iOS6 or higher in order to get a fat binary including 64bit codes.
The same will apply to Android : The devs will *have to* target KitKat or higher in order to get apk files containing aarch64 codes.
And while it's a trivial thing for iOS devs targeting 6 or higher, targeting KitKat or higher will be plain suicidal for Android devs thanks to the fragmentation.
Thank you Google!
79. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3806; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
"Fragmentation hurts really bad here."
Most of Android is ARM. For C/C++ code, you basically just change a few things and recompile for AArch64. This won't get you every Android device out there, but it will work for many of them.
It will probably take one year after Android L ships on mainstream devices before we see a lot of 64-bit apps. That really isn't very long.
81. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
You have to target KitKat or higher in addition to that.
And that's exactly the problem.
82. RebelwithoutaClue (Posts: 2224; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
So they make different versions for different Android versions. And will install the correct one depending on your Android version. This happens already with a lot of apps.
83. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3806; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
"Nope. You have to target KitKat or higher in addition to that. And that's exactly the problem."
That's not a problem in the real world. It's not enough to look only at a percentage number, i.e. "20%" or whatever KitKat is at today. You have to look at "20% of X". And X is a very large number for Android.
Also, looking at sales rates, there are so many Android phones sold every year, that KitKat or later phones is (a) already a very large number of phones and (b) also a number that is growing quite fast (as more than 20% of new phones sold are KitKat or later). This is plenty of market size and market growth rate for many developers.
The real issue will be 64-bit hardware. That will take a year or so to get to some critical mass. But this is a one time delay. As Android phones get replaced a year from now, they will largely get replaced by 64-bit ARM phones. There will be some Intel in the mix, maybe a little bit of MIPS. But these might be volumes so small they can be ignored by most developers.
88. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Then tell me why the devs are still targeting GB or ICS?
They want as much profit/downloads as possible, thus they HAVE TO target as low as they can.
KitKat is simply off the table.
It will take 3 years until KitKat reaches a market share of today's ICS.
Til then, 64bit on Android remains bogus.
90. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3806; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
"Then tell me why the devs are still targeting GB or ICS?"
Once again you are making a strawman and equating the needs of some developers with all developers.
If 20% of Android is KitKat, that's what, 200M+ devices? For many developers doing cutting edge apps, that's a reasonable size market.
The fragmentation boogyman is irrelevant because it is highly app-dependent. Some apps will suffer from fragmentation, but many won't. It's not like writing apps for multiple versions of Android is rocket science.
64-bit on Android is unimportant today because of a lack of 64-bit hardware. Once there is a lot of 64-bit hardware being sold, you will find 64-bit support is good for ARM and Intel. It will take some time, but it hard to say if this is a year, two years, three years, etc. Making up some arbitrary market share and saying that is a magic number is just making stuff up.