Jump to content



Photo

Acht Kern! (8 Cores.... smartphone?)


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 27 November 2012 - 00:17

http://www.notebookc...he.84601.0.html

MT6599, LTE... just for those that always complain for more cores in a smart phone :D


#2 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • 7,664 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 27 November 2012 - 00:21

I wonder how many seconds the battery lasts. :rolleyes:

#3 Azusa

Azusa

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,000 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 04

Posted 27 November 2012 - 00:23

I wonder how many seconds the battery lasts. :rolleyes:



8 seconds 1 for each core.

#4 tiagosilva29

tiagosilva29

    You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

  • 12,108 posts
  • Joined: 08-May 04
  • Phone: I need a new one. Gibe moni plos

Posted 27 November 2012 - 00:49

Nice!

#5 (Spork)

(Spork)

    ANDROID-APPLE

  • 4,782 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 07

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:01

I wonder how many seconds the battery lasts. :rolleyes:



well that didnt take long lol

#6 +Xinok

Xinok

    Resident Reresident

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 04
  • Location: Shikaka
  • OS: Windows 7 x64
  • Phone: Galaxy S3 (Wicked)

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:04

I still only have a dual-core processor in my PC. :ermm:

#7 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 12,778 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:33

You have to wonder, the real world benefits.. heck only windows 8 can fully manage AMD's octocore, how are they gonna go about this on smartphones?
This is why I like windows Phone... No need for crazy ass specs !

#8 yowanvista

yowanvista

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,668 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 10
  • Location: Mauritius
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64-Bit
  • Phone: i9001-CM11-KitKat 4.4.2 - Kernel 3.4.83

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:41

MediaTek's SoC are usually behind the competition and the introduction of that 8-core thing sounds a bit too overkill. Why on earth would a smartphone possibly need this?

Seems to be another hyped gimmick SoC that will bring nothing new to the table unless they use the Cortex-A15 design.

Recent versions of Android will play nice with single core processors let alone dual cores. They're going crazy with this 'who has more cores' race.

#9 +Phouchg

Phouchg

    Random Oracle

  • 5,172 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 11
  • Location: Krikkit
  • OS: VTOS 6.1.7601 x64

Posted 27 November 2012 - 07:30

Fooling general public with numbers game. While it's not a bad idea as such (because we are ever so close to the point where clocks can't be raised much), efficient parallel processing has failed to materialise, because it's friggin' hard to even do at times, not to mention do correctly. And many of today's mainstream programmers cannot be bothered to do hard things - they've lived on the legacy of the old, hiding behind tons of abstractions, so all new systems totally suck.

#10 S7R1K3R

S7R1K3R

    Neowinian

  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined: 17-January 02

Posted 28 November 2012 - 20:52

Fooling general public with numbers game. While it's not a bad idea as such (because we are ever so close to the point where clocks can't be raised much), efficient parallel processing has failed to materialise, because it's friggin' hard to even do at times, not to mention do correctly. And many of today's mainstream programmers cannot be bothered to do hard things - they've lived on the legacy of the old, hiding behind tons of abstractions, so all new systems totally suck.


What comes first, the hardware or the software to run on said hardware?

#11 +SharpGreen

SharpGreen

    Now with built-in BS detector.

  • 2,275 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 04
  • Location: North Carolina
  • OS: Ubuntu 13.04, 12.04 and Windows 8
  • Phone: Galaxy Nexus

Posted 28 November 2012 - 20:56

What comes first, the hardware or the software to run on said hardware?

The hardware always comes first.

#12 +Phouchg

Phouchg

    Random Oracle

  • 5,172 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 11
  • Location: Krikkit
  • OS: VTOS 6.1.7601 x64

Posted 28 November 2012 - 21:58

What comes first, the hardware or the software to run on said hardware?

The hardware always comes first.


It depends. In short - software can be designed to be scalable.

Long story - in most cases it even is - rarely a program (or an app... dog, I hate this term) is single-threaded these days. Just that managing multiple threads so that they don't race each other, spinlock, starve for data or deadlock - that's a damn pain in the ass for most programmers these days. And with a good reason, because it actually is very hard and complicated thing, requiring to draw flowcharts and doing hand optimizations for pretty much anything. OS schedulers and CPUs are very slowly getting better at being relied on for that, however often neither has a clue of the importance of the task at hand, not as it's being perceived by the user - they just have a priority list of hundreds of threads that each cry for more cycles. That way we are left with throwing bigger and bigger iron at the problem. I genuinely hope that there won't be a technological breakthrough for reducing process sizes so that it this unwillingness to do hard work will become problematic, even cease.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!