Report: Exynos version of Samsung Galaxy Note 4 to be more widely available this year
0. phoneArena 11 Jul 2014, 12:06 posted on
According to a report published on Friday, the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 will be available on its release date in a variant that features a 64-bit octa-core Exynos SoC. Thanks to the Intel LTE Category 6 modem reportedly employed on the Exynos 5433, Samsung will be able to offer this version of its phablet to more markets globally. The report adds that the Intel XMM7260 on-board cellular chip, will allow Galaxy Note 4 users to support speeds as fast as 300Mbps...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. galanoth (Posts: 377; Member since: 26 Nov 2011)
I hope those rumored benchmarks were right.
Exynos 5433 looks like a beast of an SOC.
Hopefully GN4 is a phone of the year candidate.
8. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)
I still like the Note 3 more than any of the current flagships. If the G3 had an 805 maybe it would of been okay.
14. AlbertAribe (Posts: 95; Member since: 21 Jun 2014)
Of course, Note 4 still be a phone of the year. Do you think the Note 4 will be the laptop of the year.
Anyway, whether may have Exynos process for the Note 4 will still beat the iPhones for some reason.
Well, it still useless for me if they can't beat the Apple iTunes because I love and I spend more money to download and purchased music and TV Shows. I don't relay much on free apps because I want the ecosystem of Apple. Google Play, never used my $10 because I can't find an store to download music and TV shows directly to Google Play.
19. james.blunt.1973 (Posts: 38; Member since: 15 Dec 2013)
Don't you dare compare THE BEST MANKIND CREATURE to some feature phones
21. mistertimi (Posts: 77; Member since: 28 May 2014)
Every exynos chip to date has looked like a beast, until you get it in a phone and use it. Then it's just good, not great and Qualcomm sh*t all over it. Same each and every time.
As I posted on an older exynos article.. Samsung is like AMD, and Qualcomm is like Intel. The exynos/AMD has a higher clock speed, more cores and can do X,Y, Z. Woahhh. The qualcomm/intel chip is slower, with less cores. Boo.
But when you use both/they're released, intel/qualcomm always wins haha it's hilarious. But also goes to explain the spec-whores of today who think benchmarks and big numbers actually meansomething
23. babyk (Posts: 249; Member since: 03 Nov 2011)
That is so true. Intel just changed the game around
24. g2a5b0e (Posts: 3276; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)
The Note 2 ONLY had an Exynos chip in it. Never had any issues. Negates your entire argument.
25. MistB (Posts: 581; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
Late join date, one of them lot just out for thumbs and thinking it's cool to hate, doesn't affect my purchasing opinion, will stick with the Exynos version myself.
2. Carlitos (Posts: 386; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
I hope so. I loved the fact that the Galaxy note 2 has Exynos processors, even in the US. Back then it was still the top SoC. They went down hill after that big. Little experiment. But have quickly fixed the issue.
3. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
I don't think it will be 64 bit if Note 4 is not with 4GB memory .
Samsung are not Apple to need useless "magic". They have enough real tech to offer.
7. PapaSmurf (Posts: 9689; Member since: 14 May 2012)
You've just opened Pandora's box with that comment.
13. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)
Samsung will put 4GB of ram in the Note 3.
5. Busyboy (unregistered)
I'm hoping the GN4 will be shipped with SD808 if it does have the Qualcomm SOC. 805 will be outdated real soon.
15. Tizen007 (Posts: 575; Member since: 07 Jan 2014)
It already kinda is by the Exynos5433.
=exynos+5433+benchmark&source= lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=3UbAU__v L4q-igLgu4HACA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw =1517&bih=741&dpr=0.9#facrc=_& imgrc=tN41VEvYIBbrRM%253A%3BkS 1E3s6ezsDUrM%3Bhttp%253A%252F% 252Fandroidandme.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%2 52F06%252FExynos-5433-benchmark.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F %252Fandroidandme.com%252F2014 %252F06%252Fnews%252Fsamsung-exynos-5433-benches-significantly-higher-than-qualcomm-snapdragon-805%252F%3B630%3B450
17. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
You shouldn't trust anything prior to the actual release.
Engineering samples are more than often quite different from the final products due to the costs, yields, etc.
26. na7noo7 (Posts: 278; Member since: 29 Mar 2014)
The 805 has Adreno 420, the SD808 has Adreno 418.
9. addicted2088 (Posts: 53; Member since: 25 Sep 2012)
This is simply repeating what the SamMobile article said about the Exynos 5433 CPU, IBTimes is the last source that you guys should be using, they're almost as worthless as DigiTimes.
10. azalucel (Posts: 99; Member since: 27 Dec 2013)
Please samsung if you choose to use the exynos 5433 then allow the source code to be public and remove that crappy knox counter, you used to allow developers to mod your phones and tablets with no problems now its just headache after headache
11. p51d007 (Posts: 114; Member since: 24 Nov 2013)
I just upgraded from a Samsung GT-N7000 Note, to a Huawei Ascend Mate2 (HAM2). Granted, I don't play games, stream a lot of videos, but can someone tell me, given the current state of software development, the "need" for x64 processors in a smartphone? This thing I use, "only" has a smaller CPU & video, "only" 720p, but good grief, either my eyes or bad, or everyone else has super human vision. I'm not a pixel peeper or someone that would stand around with a magnification lens trying to see if the edges of fonts are blurry.
What REAL world advantage, would be for stuffing an x64 chip in a phone? Battery savings? smaller SOC? Better memory performace, app performance? Or, are we doing the megapixel/megahertz race again?
18. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
First, x64 is an Intel term. It's aarch64 on ARM.
While x64 is just an extension to the 32bit x86, aarch64 is a completely new design.
And the difference is huge.
While x64 has only marginal, situational benefits over x86, aarch64 benefits tremendously from its new design :
- higher IPC (instruction per cycle)
- massive increase in bandwidth efficiency
All in all, aarch64 is much faster and more power efficient than a32 at the same clock.
And it also means it can do the same job at much lower clock that again translates to much reduced power consumption (half the clock, roughly quarter the power consumption)
The BIG caveat is though : aarch64 and aarch32(32bit emulation on ARM64) don't interwork.
On Intel machines, if the kernel is a 64bit one, you can write apps in x64 and call framework/3rd party libs written in x86 or vice versa.
It's NOT the case with ARM. aarch64 apps can only call external routines written in aarch64. The same with aarch32 apps with aarch32 frameworks.
Alas, that's EXACTLY the problem with 64bit Android.
Optimized aarch32 codes run MUCH faster than unoptimized aarch64 ones - mostly 10+ times when they are done with NEON (SIMD).
Fine, both the Linux Kernel and ART are 64bit. But the rest?
Sure, the rest of the whole framework is COMPILED targeting aarch64. But that's pretty much all.
They are mostly NOT optimized.
I understand Google very well, they are more or less forced to release such a bogus 64bit OS. They simply don't have a choice.
But lying to customers with their "64bit ready" crap? That's pathetic.
Androtakus can give thousands of reasons why it's not Google's fault and it will change in future, etc.
The first 64bit Android phones' resale value will hit the $0 mark LONG before Android actually gets "64bit ready". They won't even get the updates halfway optimized for 64bit before that.
And things that suck just suck. Reasons don't matter. That's what the usual, proper customer-vendor relation is all about.