Arceles Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 http://www.notebookcheck.com/Prozessoren-MediaTek-8-Core-Prozessor-MT6599-im-Smartphone-ZTE-Apache.84601.0.html MT6599, LTE... just for those that always complain for more cores in a smart phone :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I wonder how many seconds the battery lasts. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azusa Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I wonder how many seconds the battery lasts. :rolleyes: 8 seconds 1 for each core. Astra.Xtreme and nitins60 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Spork) Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I wonder how many seconds the battery lasts. :rolleyes: well that didnt take long lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Xinok Subscriber² Posted November 27, 2012 Subscriber² Share Posted November 27, 2012 I still only have a dual-core processor in my PC. :ermm: Buendia, AJerman, Muhammad Farrukh and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 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 ! nitins60 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowanvista Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S7R1K3R Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharpGreen Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 What comes first, the hardware or the software to run on said hardware? The hardware always comes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts