Editorial

More reasons as to why Windows Phone needs dual-cores

So you may have read my editorial a couple of days ago outlining why Windows Phone needs to support dual-core processors for not only the advancement of the platform but also as a marketing strategy. Well, I couldn’t fit everything in to that one editorial; I still have more reasons as to why Microsoft needs to get the ball rolling with multi-core support.

Again I’m reading comments saying that Android dual-core devices are laggy, the software isn’t optimized and both cores of the CPU aren’t fully utilized. That may be true in some cases for Android, but why on earth would Microsoft bring this user experience to Windows Phone? They aren’t going to lump together a hack-job done by a few coders in their spare time. Instead, just like with every aspect of WP7, they’ll carefully craft the operating system in such a way as to utilize the multiple cores properly.

You won’t end up with a massive Microsoft stuff up, you’ll end up with the same, fluid and smooth user interface you’re used to. You’ll have the same amount of lag (zero) around the UI. With proper optimization, in non-demanding tasks the battery and heat output will be the same, if not better. Resource usage will be kept low at all possible moments just like with single-core processors. The precision of Microsoft when making Windows Phone will remain right through the introduction of multi-core support.

And yes, I am aware that dual-core support is coming in Windows Phone "Apollo", and that allegedly Microsoft is taking its time to incorporate multi-core use properly. However, it is simply ridiculous how long Microsoft are taking: dual-core processors were released to the market in early 2011 and they plan on incorporating support well into 2012. That's more than a year later to simply add support for hardware, and it's plainly not acceptable for a massive company with massive resources. Apple can cook up dual-core support in less than half a year, so I'm positive Microsoft is capable of the same.

The dual-core Cortex-A9-based A5 chipset; Apple included support for this way back in March 2011

Back on track, while the operating system is keeping nice and lean, conserving speed, battery and clock cycles thanks to Microsoft's optimization, third party apps will have all the advantages of multiple threads, multiple cores and parallel processing. Developers can ramp up their applications to do things far beyond what is capable right now. If you think Windows Phone apps run smoothly with current hardware, just think what they are capable of when they harness double that power.

Like I mentioned in the comments of my previous editorial, you will be able to edit videos on your smartphone if you so desire. I know that I don’t have a need for this, but for those people who might want to do it they will actually be able to. You could edit photos in real time using Photoshop-like applications. You could put together a song using a specific app. You could have awesome augmented reality apps that are actually smooth to use.

I’ve heard people mention that no software needs dual-core processor support right now. Of course not! Hardware always comes first in a development cycle. No sane developer would code an application that doesn’t work on the platform they are coding for. As soon as we see Windows Phones with dual-cores in them, developers will start harnessing the power and develop awesome applications that need twice the power.

Furthermore, gaming will get a massive boost from having more powerful processors. Dual-core processors help greatly when gaming, and not only due to the boost that the GPUs have in dual-core SoCs. There will be so much more power to harness that mobile gamers will start to see next-generation graphics appearing in the Marketplace. Think that current Windows Phone games are awesome? Well imagine what is possible with more power.

Just on gaming, did anyone wonder why the recently announced Grand Theft Auto III mobile port is not coming to Windows Phones? Well it’s probably because the processors are too slow, as Rockstar confirmed that it will only be available for the iPhone 4S (dual-core) and high-end Android devices. I really would have liked to play GTA 3 on the high-end HTC Titan, but alas because it’s a generation out of date hardware wise, I can’t do that. Shame, really; I bet with Microsoft optimization it would have been the smoothest on Windows Phone.

GTA III is not coming to Windows Phone because the current hardware lacks power

People keep mentioning that Microsoft are harnessing the power properly of a single-core processor. Again, this is true and it's fantastic for the platform to have it run on older hardware, however there is a point where you simply cannot harness more power from old technology. With dual-core support included into Windows Phone, there is no reason why Microsoft cannot continue to optimize single-core use while doing the same for multi-core hardware.

Once they have maxed out the single-core capabilites, they won't have to scramble together dual-core support, becuase they have developed it alongside the single-core chain. In the meantime, those who want power can have power, people can feel better about having more recent technology, they can still have the smoothness of Windows Phone at their fingertips and the platform gets a nice marketing boost as well.

I know some people won’t require the features of a dual-core processor, which is why you can go buy a lower-end single-core device. No-one is forcing you to buy a dual-core device; even with Android, single-core devices like the HTC Sensation XL are being produced. Bringing dual-cores will not mean an end to the Lumia 800 or Focus S, and if you are worried about mythical battery life drain (and again reinforced by NVIDIA) then by all means don't buy a dual-core. Just because you might not want a dual-core device doesn't mean it should be restricted from everyone else.

Another thing I saw mentioned was the “premium price” dual-cores bring to the market. Well that’s a joke. The HTC Titan is retailing for a whopping AU$730; the Focus S for $550 and the Lumia 800 for $575 (420 euros). Meanwhile over in Android camp the dual-core HTC Sensation is the same $550, the Galaxy S II for $550 as well and even the LG Optimus 2X is available for $400! Dual-core hardware does not make the device more expensive; in fact the Tegra 2 processor costs just $15 and the Apple A5 just $25, two-cores included.

There is simply no good reason at all as to why Windows Phone shouldn’t have dual-core hardware. Single-core Windows Phones sure are great, fast and capable; but dual-cores will plainly be better. Dual-cores enable a future of greatness for the platform: they accelerate the capabilities of the platform while providing obvious benefits to the consumer, along with giving opportunities and new channels for developers to create cool new apps.

I truly think single-core Windows Phones are great, but I can see a dual-core Windows Phone that is just so much better.

Update: Added a huge bunch of sources

Images courtesy of dailytech.pl, Rockstar Games; 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iOS security flaw lets signed apps control your phone

Next Story

Rumor: Apple testing Siri on iPhone 4 and other devices

152 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Let's just talk about facts shall we? MS very small market share in mobile world. Even if the OS on the mobile phone does NOT require the extra performance, users are going to compare devices and clearly see there is a difference. When you are fighting for the bottom rung of a slippery ladder you would THINK you would seek any advantage you could.. but no.

I have Windows mobile, I obviously don't have dual core, performance is great... however, I do have Google, and from what I can see there is a difference on ANY phone by adding a dual core processor just glancing at benchmarks comparing similar phones on same OS.

I was going to upgrade to Windows mobile, but thanks to this latest GENIUS idea (rolling eyes) I am switching to Droid ASAP. Ridiculous.. just utterly stupid, lack of vision and short sided on behalf of MS. I think it's time Steve Balmer follow Joe Paterno.. and go suck a lime juice on a beach somewhere, it's obvious he has no concept of competition.

Tim, Haven't you heard of a GPU?? GTA is not coming to Windows Phones, but coming to iPhone not because of CPU. It is because of the GPU. Write your next article on why Microsoft needs to get out of the slow Qualcomm Adreno GPUs and start using PowerVR GPUs.

- Dual core processors cost more
- Lower clock speeds.. a dual 1GHz may cost more than a single 1.4GHz
-The extra core has nothing to do but sit there adding size and complexity
- If MS does as you say and optimizes the OS so it has the same power draw it does now, that means they'll make it run only one core most of the time. Remember the lower clock speed
-If the chassis adds dual core *now*, that will fragment the flagship phones as some'll implement it and some won't. This is the developer uncertainty Microsoft does well to avoid
When the chassis is updated *later* (next fall), every phone will be dual core, not some. The developer tools will be prepared for dual core and apps can be expected that will actually make use of it. How many video editing apps would you expect to see right now?
-The OS handles background agents so it doesn't need cpu threads for background tasks
-Engineering time was being spent improving the features of the OS. That brought a whopping Mango update. To prioritize dual core support/optimization, they would have had to divert manpower.

-So if Microsoft pursued dual cores *right this moment*, expect bigger more expensive phones that die faster and run hotter unless they only use one core all the time (which they will anyway since no apps use dual), as well as more work for everybody, and your reason for urging on these disadvantages RIGHT NOW is "for marketing"? Seriously, which consumers do you think care? I work in IT and none of my coworkers rave about the cores in their phone.. they want an experience

burnblue said,
- Dual core processors cost more
- Lower clock speeds.. a dual 1GHz may cost more than a single 1.4GHz
-The extra core has nothing to do but sit there adding size and complexity
- If MS does as you say and optimizes the OS so it has the same power draw it does now, that means they'll make it run only one core most of the time. Remember the lower clock speed

OK, this info is all well and good.. however, if your COMPETITION sees a benefit, why not MS? Users don't give a hostess ding dong about the finer details about how an OS works, they want what they WANT, if if the LARGER players in the market see a benefit in dual core, MS should as well, and let's face it.. MS is NOT hurting for money.. 25 billion dollar profit each year, they HAVE the cash and leverage, what they LACK is market share.. staying put when your COMPETITORS are advancing (whether they use it or not!) just makes you look like you are not keeping pace and give up the fight..

If that's what they are going for, they reached their goal!.. if not, that market share just got a little smaller.. Do YOU actually have a Windows mobile phone?

Geez... It does not NEED dual core. Everything that is out for WP7 works fine on WP7 with single core therefore where is the logic of putting in a dual core. There is no need for it yet. There is no bloat no slowdown on the OS what so ever unlike android.

Dual Core will come when its needed. Just not yet.

Noveed said,
Geez... It does not NEED dual core. Everything that is out for WP7 works fine on WP7 with single core therefore where is the logic of putting in a dual core. There is no need for it yet. There is no bloat no slowdown on the OS what so ever unlike android.

Dual Core will come when its needed. Just not yet.

OK, it does not need it. when you go to Best buy and you want to do an ACCURATE comparison between phones, what do you look for? Battery life, memory, apps.. and...?!?!? wait for it.. CPU Spec!

If you don't look at the specs what criteria do you use to compare phones then? Windows mobile certainly isn't elegant like Apple, it's not feature rich and customizable like Droid.. so how do tell the ACTUAL phone apart?

Maybe you don't care about the specs.. ok that's fine, but when you go to a website and do a side by side compare, and CPU is one of the differentiating features.. it's going to STAND out, that's my point. It will clearly be a sore point.

Now there are several sites and took a Droid and Apple phone, compared the NEW phone with a current phone SAME OS. JUST the dual core alone makes it 30% faster. DUAL CORE performance enhance, period.

What does that say about MS, they don't care, or their OS sucks and it won't matter how many cores you give it.. it wont' go any faster? Or they are willing to let the COMPETITION gain a decided advantage... Either way it looks bad.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Windows Phone doesn't need to add dual core support, it does, but I don't think it's as vital at this point in time as the author makes it out to be. When people do say things like "Windows Phone doesn't need dual core" it is usually because they are talking to an Android fan that is trying to use the lack of dual core to say that Windows Phones are slow. They say this because they remember their old single-core Android being slow, so they assume that Windows Phone runs the same way. This is what gets WP fans riled up.

One thing I'd also like to point out is that the high-end Windows Phones are running 1.4-1.5 GHz now, while most of the dual-core Androids are only running 1.2 GHz. For applications that are not specifically designed to run multi-threaded, this actually means that the Windows Phones have more processing power than the Androids. Now, you say, 3rd party app developers could optimize their apps for dual cores - well, they could, but many won't take the time because multi-threaded code is more difficult to write.

I must agree with this 100%.. The whole argument of both of the editorials is basically set on the assumption WP should keep up with Android and iOS specs because the enduser assumes it is required for a proper working phone. And this is where the argument goes wrong as it assumes the general phone buying person visits Neowin and is up to date with the latest whizzbang hardware. They are not. They walk into the store and buy because the deve looks good first and second when they try it they do not feel awkward. Many of the geekheads here underestimate the power of the word WINDOWS.. Your average joe will instantly feel at home since his PC at home does Windows. When they pick up the device it basically speaks the same language their home PC speaks. The device (if the salespitch is correct) will seamlessly integrate with their home enviroment with even more to come with hte next version of Windows which will offer even better integration.

Todays smartphones do not, yes _NOT_ require a dualcore CPU because they can take advantage of it, just because it will mask the deficiencies in the OS. IF you think iOS 5 was optimised for the A5 you might want to rethink that.. And _TODAY_ the top of the line WP devices easily compete in User experience and resposiveness with either Android or iOS bacause of the better implementation and optimization to the single core.

Will WP get DualCOre.. obviously it will and when it does it will again be better at using it's potential because it is designed better to progress with hardware advancements.

Lastly.. anyone here talking down WP should have a hard look in the mirror as you obviously have issues with your own hardware to try and talk another OS down.. WHat's the worry if you are using a true to notch OS which properly utilizes hardware it's running on..

JonathanMarston said,
I don't think anyone is arguing that Windows Phone doesn't need to add dual core support, it does, but I don't think it's as vital at this point in time as the author makes it out to be. When people do say things like "Windows Phone doesn't need dual .

Its not about needs, it's about what customers WILL see, when you are small market share, how do you keep up with other companies if you don't do what THEY do?

We know MOST of phones do they don't NEED a dual core processor, but it IS included with OTHER phones... so if a selling feature is "dual core" you don't think it might be a TAD important??!?! Especially when THAT's how OTHER companies up sell you to upgrade. It IS a selling feature, period. So whether or not its included, needed or usable.. isn't the point, it's NOT there, when every other phone DOES have it.

and don't give me this crap about it WILL be there, Christmas is THIS year in a little over a month.. It won't MAKE it THIS year timing is CRUCIAL when you are a small player.. This is the same thinking why ZUNE failed...

Microsoft is doing absolutely the right thing by waiting to support dual core, optimizing the OS properly, and saving our battery life. I love my single core HTC Trophy just the way it is!

GTA's system requirements at the time were:

450 MHz Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon CPU
96 MB RAM
8x CD-ROM drive
500 MB hard disk space
16 MB DirectX 8.1 compatible graphics card
DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card

If GTA 3 can't run on a 1 Ghz CPU with 512 MB of RAM and hardware accelerated graphics, then it's freakin Rockstar's fault.

ironcladlou said,
Microsoft is doing absolutely the right thing by waiting to support dual core, optimizing the OS properly, and saving our battery life. I love my single core HTC Trophy just the way it is!

There is a site (you can find it yourself) it's even on youtube that disputes this ENTIRE argument.. they took a phone compared battery life between the previous generation and this one, ONLY difference is dual core processor.. Battery life didn't change, not one bit. Performance improved 30% at the same time... You are too cheap to WANT to upgrade because you can't.. that's why you are happy for the time being..

So adding a core does NOT mean sucking more battery it's HOW you use it. If MS can't "optimize" their OS like Apple and Droid does.. NOW, that makes MS seem even MORE like losers.

Most apps wouldn't take advantage of dual core anyway, the same way most software isn't programmed to take advantage of multi-core CPUs on a desktop!

Ricky65 said,
Most apps wouldn't take advantage of dual core anyway, the same way most software isn't programmed to take advantage of multi-core CPUs on a desktop!

It's not about advantage it's just about similar features. MS isn't the only phone on the market, but it WILL be the only NEW phone without a DUAL CORE.. and you don't think that will hurt their sales at all huh?

You are also dead wrong about apps on a desktop.. adding JUST a CPU alone WILL improve performance.. for EVERY app. You are a complete dimwit if you think otherwise...

The ignorance shown by the writer of this blathering excuse for an article is shown by the statement "That's more than a year later to simply add support for hardware". Simply? Have you NOT seen the issues with the Focus v1.4? I'm sick of people pawning themselves off as experts when they have no more on the ball than the average person. I dare say that a huge percentage of the people who frequent Neowin are, in fact, much more technically aware. The reason why WP7 does so very well on "lesser hardware" is because Microsoft took great pains to leverage the power of the GPU, rather than the CPU to make things smooth. This was no small feat. And the payoff shows. And for an article that claims to be submitting "even more" reasons for WP7 to support dual cores, the only actual "reason" was so the author could play a flippin' game. A game. That's about as lame of an excuse as I can think of. The bottom line is that Microsoft IS working to support multiple cores, and it will likely be part of WP8, which will be more like a desktop OS in terms of power & versatility. The author is a simpleton.

Gungel said,
Dual Core is needed to compensate for lazy programming.

That makes no sense being that parallelism requires a little more work.

Gungel said,
Dual Core is needed to compensate for lazy programming.

wow so 8 cylinder engines were there to make up for badly designed transmissions? Wow that is genius.

Pedro Roque said,
Congrats on the nice piece of trolling.

Now, let me go and remove neowin from my feed reader...

Adios pendejo!

Well at least this one is far less negative than the last one

The GTA III thing probably has far more to do with Microsoft restricting game development to XNA rather than allowing C++ w/Direct X (or OpenGL, but there's little chance of that ever happening), meaning if would be far more effort to produce, and probably give lesser performing results. Also not knowing much about the GTA 3 engine, and they may be forced to drop any shaders they used if they had any, due to Microsoft not supporting programmable shaders in XNA yet.

The good reason Microsoft doesn't support it yet is, like you've said, they've spent so much time optimising not only the OS, but it's two development frameworks, Silverlight and XNA, to run as well as possible on the limited hardware. We know multi-core support is coming in the next major version - so what's the point here?

I like what this editorial is saying. I am using WP7 and I like it allot for my basic use. But I find that its not as much fun as iPhone. The main reason being the hardware is not as versatile as iPhones and softwares yes softwares. They need to attract developers to consider WP7 along with Andorid and iOS. This can only happen if Microsoft keep their phone spec current and up there u know wat I mean.

I want to hear the dev ppl saying. "Gee!!! I can do that *fun stuff* with this platform"

Its refreshing to read other perspectives rather than the typical Windows fanboy praising and ass kissing.

This is the reality, WP7 devices are using last gen tech, and many people including myself are not going to be willing to pay for less. I had current WP7 specs on my Android LAST YEAR.

And what happens when WP8 comes around and DOES support multiple cores? All your phones will be obsolete because they could be running multiple cores right now but are not. Then you also got half the RAM, low resolution displays, and gpu from over a year ago (WP7 using Adreno 205 Android been using Adreno 220 for months now)

Cash Money Billionaire said,
Its refreshing to read other perspectives rather than the typical Windows fanboy praising and ass kissing.

This is the reality, WP7 devices are using last gen tech, and many people including myself are not going to be willing to pay for less. I had current WP7 specs on my Android LAST YEAR.

And what happens when WP8 comes around and DOES support multiple cores? All your phones will be obsolete because they could be running multiple cores right now but are not. Then you also got half the RAM, low resolution displays, and gpu from over a year ago (WP7 using Adreno 205 Android been using Adreno 220 for months now)

Your are right but I also remember Android last year with the same specs as Windows Phone 7 laging and crashing all the time. So what is better a realiable phone that runs smoothly with less or a super last "gen" phone with super awesome specs that still runs single threated apps even though its got multiple cores?? Yeah dude, lets use our 1080p last gen cameras! they're last generation and WP7 doens't have them.... oh wait after 3 mintues I almost ran out of battery.

Anybody can put high end spec phones while further defragmenting the OS but who the hell wants that especially when there isn't even battery to feed all this crap while keeping the phone slim and super last gen!! like you put it. Go last gen yourself. untill all parts work in harmony as far as the processor, battery, memory and camera work right having just one part improve over the other is nothing but gimmik to attract flashy geeky posers.

Cash Money Billionaire said,
Its refreshing to read other perspectives rather than the typical Windows fanboy praising and ass kissing.

This is the reality, WP7 devices are using last gen tech, and many people including myself are not going to be willing to pay for less. I had current WP7 specs on my Android LAST YEAR.

hehe.. my thinking exactly..

It was about time someone spoke out about this issue. WP is seriously lagging behind the other platforms in hardware terms. A dual core cpu is a must for any self-respecting multitasking OS. The typical "It doesn't need dual core" response is getting old. Microsoft is introducing it in Apollo, what does that tell you? It tells us that Windows Phone desperately needs dual core support to even keep up with the competition.

Joey S said,
It was about time someone spoke out about this issue. WP is seriously lagging behind the other platforms in hardware terms. A dual core cpu is a must for any self-respecting multitasking OS. The typical "It doesn't need dual core" response is getting old. Microsoft is introducing it in Apollo, what does that tell you? It tells us that Windows Phone desperately needs dual core support to even keep up with the competition.

Microsoft introducing dual-core means it wants to pull even FURTHER ahead of the competition. WP with single core is ALREADY ahead of the competition in terms of speed and performance.

england_fanboy said,

Microsoft introducing dual-core means it wants to pull even FURTHER ahead of the competition. WP with single core is ALREADY ahead of the competition in terms of speed and performance.

Its only ahead in perceived performance - most definitely not raw speed.

Joey S said,
It was about time someone spoke out about this issue. WP is seriously lagging behind the other platforms in hardware terms. A dual core cpu is a must for any self-respecting multitasking OS. The typical "It doesn't need dual core" response is getting old. Microsoft is introducing it in Apollo, what does that tell you? It tells us that Windows Phone desperately needs dual core support to even keep up with the competition.

It doesn't need it! You don't need name brand clothes, wear Walmart brand!

You don't need coke, drink the store brand cola it's the same thing!

You don't need better stereo in your car, you are going to blow out your ear drums!

Quality.. not quantity is what this is ALL about. 2 COREs only shows you aren't stuck with last year's model.. and this "don't need" mentality is getting VERY old..

england_fanboy said,

Microsoft introducing dual-core means it wants to pull even FURTHER ahead of the competition. WP with single core is ALREADY ahead of the competition in terms of speed and performance.

Oh yeah, because nothing says application speed than throttling back the hardware to half. That's just simply outstanding thinking there boy wonder, what other bright words of wisdom do you have to offer?

The guy who wrote this should not be allowed to write further articles on Neowin...his last two editorials about wp7 have been awful

Ridiculous. If you want to post your opinion, do it on the forum, don't put it as an editorial.
You obviously don't know much about programming applications and games (hint: there's not one app out of a hundred phone apps that would benefit from a dual-core CPU) and that nullifies your points.

Aethec said,
Ridiculous. If you want to post your opinion, do it on the forum, don't put it as an editorial.
You obviously don't know much about programming applications and games (hint: there's not one app out of a hundred phone apps that would benefit from a dual-core CPU) and that nullifies your points.

You clearly need an education in programming yourself. A well designed OS doesn't need multithreaded applications to benefit from SMP (symmetric multiprocessing). In such an OS, multiple processes can run in parallel. This can greatly enhance the speed and efficiency with which a scheduling kernel does its work. In short, background and active applications run quicker and more smoothly.

As far as threaded apps go, there are now many that utilise multiple threads, including games, and that list is only going to grow in time. Do all apps need to be threaded? Absolutely not, that would be bad design, however, all applications benefit from SMP in a multitasking environment.

Joey S said,

You clearly need an education in programming yourself. A well designed OS doesn't need multithreaded applications to benefit from SMP (symmetric multiprocessing). In such an OS, multiple processes can run in parallel. This can greatly enhance the speed and efficiency with which a scheduling kernel does its work. In short, background and active applications run quicker and more smoothly.

As far as threaded apps go, there are now many that utilise multiple threads, including games, and that list is only going to grow in time. Do all apps need to be threaded? Absolutely not, that would be bad design, however, all applications benefit from SMP in a multitasking environment.

You know absolutely nothing about programming. It's clear from your lame posts. Any programmer can tell you Android is fundamentally crippled compared to Windows Phone. That's why no amount of cores is going to make Android anywhere near as responsive as WP.

Aethec said,
Ridiculous. If you want to post your opinion, do it on the forum, don't put it as an editorial.
You obviously don't know much about programming applications and games (hint: there's not one app out of a hundred phone apps that would benefit from a dual-core CPU) and that nullifies your points.

Editorials are opinion pieces. That's why they're editorials and not news.

Joey S said,

You clearly need an education in programming yourself. A well designed OS doesn't need multithreaded applications to benefit from SMP (symmetric multiprocessing). In such an OS, multiple processes can run in parallel. This can greatly enhance the speed and efficiency with which a scheduling kernel does its work. In short, background and active applications run quicker and more smoothly.

As far as threaded apps go, there are now many that utilise multiple threads, including games, and that list is only going to grow in time. Do all apps need to be threaded? Absolutely not, that would be bad design, however, all applications benefit from SMP in a multitasking environment.


And...how does that affect a phone?
We're talking about an OS that only ever shows one program at a time, and who runs on a phone. In other words, having two CPU-intensive apps running at the same time is not a use case.
Android lets you run tons of apps at the same time without pausing them, and that causes terrible battery life.
WP's solution is background agents, which have limited resources anyway and shouldn't ever do CPU-intensive calculations.

Unlike a desktop computer, which is often used to run multiple applications at one time including CPU-expensive calculations that run in the background, a phone is mono-tasking from a user's point of view.

~Johnny said,
Editorials are opinion pieces. That's why they're editorials and not news.

Editorials appear on the front page, and will be quoted as "Neowin says".

Aethec said,

Editorials appear on the front page, and will be quoted as "Neowin says".

Yes. Evidently it's opinion then if it says "NEOWIN says".

Joey S said,

You clearly need an education in programming yourself. A well designed OS doesn't need multithreaded applications to benefit from SMP (symmetric multiprocessing). In such an OS, multiple processes can run in parallel. This can greatly enhance the speed and efficiency with which a scheduling kernel does its work. In short, background and active applications run quicker and more smoothly.

As far as threaded apps go, there are now many that utilise multiple threads, including games, and that list is only going to grow in time. Do all apps need to be threaded? Absolutely not, that would be bad design, however, all applications benefit from SMP in a multitasking environment.

+1 but at the moment we need to look at the facts. What are these apps that would so greatly improve right now from multicore processor in a freaking phone? Especially when batteries suck so bad.

Aethec said,
Ridiculous. If you want to post your opinion, do it on the forum, don't put it as an editorial.
You obviously don't know much about programming applications and games (hint: there's not one app out of a hundred phone apps that would benefit from a dual-core CPU) and that nullifies your points.

It's about limitations *IF* we wanted to use that ONE app that used dual core, we CAN'T.. BUT if we had that extra core we wouldn't be limited now would we, captain amazing.

Its better to have something and NOT need it, than not having it when you NEED it most!

Open Minded said,
Cognitive dissonance is rampant up in this beeoch!

I can't see any disharmony in his arguments. Unless you mean in the commentators?

its just not first on the priority list at the moment... there are still way too many critical flaws (well actually not many after mango) that need to be ironed out to make it a dominate platform

Tim you're a troll that happened to make it into the neowin editorial. That's a shame. Your points are have no back up data or information except for childish remarks like "mythical battery drain." come on are you kidding me? You do know that some of neowin readers unlike you do program for a living. How can you post such a crappy editorial stating things like "how much cooler it would be if... "Get some data and stop talking so much "awesomeness." android phones are cheaper because they don't have to pay for their OS. And I'm sorry but just wanting dual core phones solely based on video gaming doesn't cut it. Show me something else developers today are "harnessing", as you put it, from the new dual core phones that isn't a video game to take more seriously.

As far as I can read you had no more to say from your last editorial. You just wanted to look less silly by arguing the comments from then. Just remember this kid, "Cooler" isn't always better.

trashoner said,
Tim you're a troll that happened to make it into the neowin editorial. That's a shame. Your points are have no back up data or information except for childish remarks like "mythical battery drain." come on are you kidding me?

I'm afraid dual-cores use less power. 45nm Cortex A9 @ 1 GHz uses ~500mW for both cores combined (250 mW each). 65nm Cortex A8 @ 1 GHz uses ~600 mW for one core. This information is available on the ARM website.

So if you properly power down one core you will use a LOT less power than a single core. Even with both cores you should, with proper power management, use less power than a single-core.

EDIT: I believe the current battery drain issue with Android is due to extremely poor software on the OS and kernel side. The hardware and numbers say that it's possible to use less power with dual-cores so something software-side must be causing these issues

Edited by Scorpus, Nov 8 2011, 9:23am :

trashoner said,
Tim you're a troll that happened to make it into the neowin editorial. That's a shame. Your points are have no back up data or information except for childish remarks like "mythical battery drain." come on are you kidding me? You do know that some of neowin readers unlike you do program for a living. How can you post such a crappy editorial stating things like "how much cooler it would be if... "Get some data and stop talking so much "awesomeness." android phones are cheaper because they don't have to pay for their OS. And I'm sorry but just wanting dual core phones solely based on video gaming doesn't cut it. Show me something else developers today are "harnessing", as you put it, from the new dual core phones that isn't a video game to take more seriously.

As far as I can read you had no more to say from your last editorial. You just wanted to look less silly by arguing the comments from then. Just remember this kid, "Cooler" isn't always better.

I saw that "mythical battery drain" was a link, and clicked thinking it was going to be a dispellling source.. but no, he just linked to a comment right here on this page. Is dude serious? If the engineers at Microsoft tell us that there are battery penalties for dual core, why should I think it's "mythical" just because this guy says so?

tom5 said,
Am I wrong or you have to pay some fees to Google for using the Android code commercially?

You're right, nowdays you pay twice once to Google and second time to Microsot for patented intellectual property stuff but all in all im sure Microsoft probably charges OEM's more than Google does. This is just a guess though.

Edited by trashoner, Nov 9 2011, 2:04am :

Scorpus said,

I'm afraid dual-cores use less power. 45nm Cortex A9 @ 1 GHz uses ~500mW for both cores combined (250 mW each). 65nm Cortex A8 @ 1 GHz uses ~600 mW for one core. This information is available on the ARM website.

So if you properly power down one core you will use a LOT less power than a single core. Even with both cores you should, with proper power management, use less power than a single-core.

EDIT: I believe the current battery drain issue with Android is due to extremely poor software on the OS and kernel side. The hardware and numbers say that it's possible to use less power with dual-cores so something software-side must be causing these issues

Based on simple mathematics this is true but we both know that in real life things may be different. When I posted this I meant that he had no actual data in the editorial backing up his claims.

I still think that the major issue here is the fact that batteries have not caught on with processing power. You can't be serious that the OS should be managing how many cores are on or off. This is simple now that we're just talking about 2 cores but what about when this things hit 4 or 8 cores in the future. We can't just patch the battery issues and blame it on the OS makers. Microsoft more conservative approach will save them embarrassment and bad rep, that they cannot afford in this point in the game. In order to really put out a good phone all parts of the phone must work well together. we can't have a 12mp camera recording 1080p videos and draining more than half the battery in just a few minutes. Batteries must become more efficient before cameras and multiple core processors can live happily together.

PS. I just meant for Tim to back up his facts with real data in his editorial. I am not saying there isn't actuall data out there available.

This article is treading a thin line between reality and trolling. But most people won't mind to have polarized views.

Apple can cook up dual-core support in less than half a year

wait, WTF? Please stop smoking whatever you are smokin. This is just ridiculous thing to say.

Who is to say that Microsoft isn't reading any of this and is planning on dual-core support and nothing more with Apollo? Apollo is Windows Phone 8, and Microsoft realized a weakness of their own system. Fragmentation was something they were trying to avoid, but fragmentation is healthy for Android right now, it has brought out dual-core phones and truly remarkable phones.

Consistency and efficiency brought out the best for Windows Phone 7. The experience is so smooth. I love it. But it has hurt Microsoft because they can't excel, they can't move forward without the hardware guidelines being redone. They can't redo everything all the time for some high-end phones to stand out from the batch.

I believe Nokia will be assisting them in the future with these issues. The competition Nokia brings to the Windows Phone ecosystem will also alarm others like Samsung and HTC to take action and compete. Windows Phone 8 will most definitely have very loose hardware guidelines, but very consistent. For example, as high as a screen resolution can go, as many cores a mobile CPU can retain, etc. They can work on allowing improvement and competition where there was very little before, but retaining consistency in the experience across all Windows Phones.

My final point I'm trying to get across is - you believe Microsoft will always be two steps behind. No, you're wrong. They will learn from their mistakes, they will allow more, and they will allow more flexibilty in competition in the future. But for now, Microsoft can't mimick Google and throw together a phone with a dual-core slapped on...it simply won't work. I'm sorry, but accept this.

In other news, I got my new Samsung Focus S, and I'm loving the speed! Apps that were poorly developed actually perform fairly decent. But other than that, everything is the same speed and consistent experience.

And the last comment is the most ironic ......"GTA III is not coming to Windows Phone because the current hardware lacks power".
This is a phone that we are talking about here (supposedly) why do have to play GTAIII on it ???
Admittedly it is a "smartphone" ! But that is just it ....IT IS A PHONE !!!!

Caveman-ugh said,
And the last comment is the most ironic ......"GTA III is not coming to Windows Phone because the current hardware lacks power".
This is a phone that we are talking about here (supposedly) why do have to play GTAIII on it ???
Admittedly it is a "smartphone" ! But that is just it ....IT IS A PHONE !!!!


Well then you don't have to purchase a dual core phone if you don't want one. I do though; I want the baddest specs with the baddest applications possible.

Caveman-ugh said,
And the last comment is the most ironic ......"GTA III is not coming to Windows Phone because the current hardware lacks power".
This is a phone that we are talking about here (supposedly) why do have to play GTAIII on it ???
Admittedly it is a "smartphone" ! But that is just it ....IT IS A PHONE !!!!


Yes, because since YOU don't want to play GTA 3 on a phone, no one else would want to. Also, you totally missed his point. It's not about GTA. It's the fact that already there are games that WP7 isn't powerful enough to run. To you and some other people here that say "touch screen gaming sucks!!" that might not be an issue, but mobile gaming is pretty damned popular and you're even more out to lunch than I thought if you think not being able to run some of the top tier games that iPhone and Android can run won't effect sales for WP7.

JPXi said,

Yes, because since YOU don't want to play GTA 3 on a phone, no one else would want to. Also, you totally missed his point. It's not about GTA. It's the fact that already there are games that WP7 isn't powerful enough to run. To you and some other people here that say "touch screen gaming sucks!!" that might not be an issue, but mobile gaming is pretty damned popular and you're even more out to lunch than I thought if you think not being able to run some of the top tier games that iPhone and Android can run won't effect sales for WP7.

Actually Wp7 is powerful enough to run on a single processor...

JPXi said,

Yes, because since YOU don't want to play GTA 3 on a phone, no one else would want to. Also, you totally missed his point. It's not about GTA. It's the fact that already there are games that WP7 isn't powerful enough to run. To you and some other people here that say "touch screen gaming sucks!!" that might not be an issue, but mobile gaming is pretty damned popular and you're even more out to lunch than I thought if you think not being able to run some of the top tier games that iPhone and Android can run won't effect sales for WP7.

Do you actually read what you put? You're talking about GAMES. The very last reason to have a smartphone in the first place. Yep, most people buy smartphones because they're looking for the ultimate gaming experience. That's just stupid.

ScubaDog said,

Do you actually read what you put? You're talking about GAMES. The very last reason to have a smartphone in the first place. Yep, most people buy smartphones because they're looking for the ultimate gaming experience. That's just stupid.


Because mobile gaming isn't popular at all :facepalm:

JPXi said,

Yes, because since YOU don't want to play GTA 3 on a phone, no one else would want to. Also, you totally missed his point. It's not about GTA. It's the fact that already there are games that WP7 isn't powerful enough to run. To you and some other people here that say "touch screen gaming sucks!!" that might not be an issue, but mobile gaming is pretty damned popular and you're even more out to lunch than I thought if you think not being able to run some of the top tier games that iPhone and Android can run won't effect sales for WP7.

And those games you're talking about would be..?? that's right there is no one game that has been put in the marketplace that doesn't run properly so how can we tal about GTA when I believe the real reason they haven't ported it to WP7 is because its better for them to put code where games will sale more. It has nothing to do with the cores but money my friend.

You shouldn't need a PC with more than a single core 1ghz processor and over a gig of RAM. Windows XP runs just fine on those specs. We really should have just capped PC specs there and not gone forward. It's good enough.

That's basically what you WP7 fanboys are saying. See how absurd you sound?

Good article BTW. Sums things up nicely. Don't let these morons get you down. You're 100% correct.

Out of all the phone fanboys, only WP7 fans are happy with WEAKER specs. And that's only because their phones have the weakest specs. As I've said before, if WP7 had the specs of a top of the line Android or iPhone, and the top of the line Android or iPhone had the specs of WP7, you would all be laughing at them and saying how weak and underpowered they are. But since it's WP7, way out of date hardware is ok.

It's just constant excuses with the WP7 crowd. Whether it's way out of date specs or terrible sales, it's excuse after excuse and "wait until this" or "wait until that". It's pathetic.

Edited by JPXi, Nov 8 2011, 4:10am :

JPXi said,
You shouldn't need a PC with more than a single core 1ghz processor and over a gig of RAM. Windows XP runs just fine on those specs. We really should have just capped PC specs there and not gone forward. It's good enough.

That's basically what you WP7 fanboys are saying. See how absurd you sound?

Good article BTW. Sums things up nicely. Don't let these morons get you down. You're 100% correct.


Here, here JPXi.

Actually, I wouldn't talk down to others because of their specs. I talk down to them (my friends) that they have more powerful hardware than mine and I have less lag than they do even after they root their phones (all have android btw).

Those "WP 7 fanboys" actually mean it doesn't NEED a multi-core CPU as much as other operating systems do. It would be nice, yes, but where did they mention it should be forbidden?

"I truly think single-core Windows Phones are great, but I can see a dual-core Windows Phone that is just so much better."

This line sums it up for everyone...

Is WP7 good with SC? Yes...
Can WP7 be better with DC? Yes...

This is written from a gamers perspective. A gamer who thinks touch screen phone games are actually good.

Enron said,
This is written from a gamers perspective. A gamer who thinks touch screen phone games are actually good.

50% of smartphones are bought for mobile gaming. So Microsoft just wrote off that market completely.

KingCrimson said,

50% of smartphones are bought for mobile gaming. So Microsoft just wrote off that market completely.

Sure, that's why they have Xbox live on it.

Where was this genius analysis when the iphone didn't support dual core, why wasn't the author as concerned then? Just more anti-WP7 BS.

efjay said,
Where was this genius analysis when the iphone didn't support dual core, why wasn't the author as concerned then? Just more anti-WP7 BS.

Because now that every other platform has dual cores, he's concerned that WP will appear behide times, which it is. Even if it's for pure marketing reasons, WP should support dual cores.

The idea that hardware needs to be beyond what any software requires for a smooth experience betrays either nothing more than hardware lust, or having not entirely escaped how desktop computing worked several years back.

There was a time when it was worth investing a bit closer to bleeding edge. The budget PC market hadn't really come about yet, and we were all spending over a grand anyway. Meanwhile, each new generation of games was taking a major step forward and played with modern hardware more happily than the porn industry played with modern video formats.

But that doesn't happen anymore. The demand on video performance isn't growing exponentially as it once did, and certainly CPUs aren't being hit as hard either (Windows 7 runs on hardware older than today's Power Rangers audience). Technology has become less about pushing boldly forward into raw specifications, and is instead going in the direction of sophistication: doing more with less, managing resources more intelligently.

The way we multitask on a smartphone is entirely unlike the way we multitask on a PC. We don't have 3+ windows open and visible at any given time. We can't even text while watching a video play. If you're doing something hardware intensive, it's the only thing you CAN do--not because of the CPU, but because every mobile OS is designed around a full-screen app experience (short of, I suppose, devices like the Kyocera Echo). With that in mind, I'd rather see advancements in the field of memory management. Right now task switching puts apps into various sorts of sleep modes, and the more efficiently memory is handled, the more effective multitasking becomes on handsets.

Two cores--or four for the truly wasteful--are pointless on this scale at this time, and 'future proofing' is a crappy argument in a market where smartphones are still subject to carrier subsidies and a culture of changing hardware every two years anyway. One battle at a time, as they say, and if you're looking for one to fight, fight carrier subsidies, and demand that we eventually have a market where smartphones are bought from vendors, unlocked, and provisioned on a per user basis by the carrier of his choice. Save the core battle for when the way we use smartphones has any potential to take advantage of them in the first place.

Joshie said,
The idea that hardware needs to be beyond what any software requires for a smooth experience betrays either nothing more than hardware lust, or having not entirely escaped how desktop computing worked several years back.

There was a time when it was worth investing a bit closer to bleeding edge. The budget PC market hadn't really come about yet, and we were all spending over a grand anyway. Meanwhile, each new generation of games was taking a major step forward and played with modern hardware more happily than the porn industry played with modern video formats.

But that doesn't happen anymore. The demand on video performance isn't growing exponentially as it once did, and certainly CPUs aren't being hit as hard either (Windows 7 runs on hardware older than today's Power Rangers audience). Technology has become less about pushing boldly forward into raw specifications, and is instead going in the direction of sophistication: doing more with less, managing resources more intelligently.

The way we multitask on a smartphone is entirely unlike the way we multitask on a PC. We don't have 3+ windows open and visible at any given time. We can't even text while watching a video play. If you're doing something hardware intensive, it's the only thing you CAN do--not because of the CPU, but because every mobile OS is designed around a full-screen app experience (short of, I suppose, devices like the Kyocera Echo). With that in mind, I'd rather see advancements in the field of memory management. Right now task switching puts apps into various sorts of sleep modes, and the more efficiently memory is handled, the more effective multitasking becomes on handsets.

Two cores--or four for the truly wasteful--are pointless on this scale at this time, and 'future proofing' is a crappy argument in a market where smartphones are still subject to carrier subsidies and a culture of changing hardware every two years anyway. One battle at a time, as they say, and if you're looking for one to fight, fight carrier subsidies, and demand that we eventually have a market where smartphones are bought from vendors, unlocked, and provisioned on a per user basis by the carrier of his choice. Save the core battle for when the way we use smartphones has any potential to take advantage of them in the first place.


Cute essay. The market (customers) will decide with their money whether something is "pointless" or not. Until then, let the dual core phones banaza begin.

AWilliams87 said,

Cute essay. The market (customers) will decide with their money whether something is "pointless" or not. Until then, let the dual core phones banaza begin.

Sure, as long as you're honest with yourself and pay attention to whether ordinary people are talking about the number of cores. If all you do is sit around reading tech blogs, of course you're going to think everybody knows what it all means. But bloggers don't represent the market (as much as they'd like to think they do), nor do geeks. Android may be based on Linux, and Apple OSes may be based on Unix, but the painfully vast majority of people using those environments would never live up to the "RTFM n00b" standards of the *nix community.

I mean, these people don't even know what 4G means. Carriers KNOW people don't know what 4G means. Why do you think Verizon makes sure every-single-ad-you-see says something like "lightning fast" before every mention of the term? They know it's the only way to make the language hit home, and you'd see the exact same thing if anybody mentioned core count--there'd be any variety of language wrapped around "dual-/quad-core" in the marketing to translate it to lay terms, and odds are they'd use something just as meaningless in technical terms as "lightning fast".

After all, like even the multi-core advocates acknowledge, Windows Phone (and the iPhone 4) exhibited no lag and 'felt' speedy and smooth on their single cores. If it FEELS just as fast, then to waste time marketing dual-core on its speed alone does nothing to actually differentiate it.

Heck, I'd challenge anyone here to come up with language ANY businessman on the street would be able to understand that would effectively communicate how dual core is different from single core using NO MORE TIME than your average commercial spot would be allotted.

smooth3006 said,
Wp7 is leaps behind android. Quad core specs were released today.

Exactly. WP8 should already come supported for quads; even if it's simply for marketing reasons.

AWilliams87 said,

Exactly. WP8 should already come supported for quads; even if it's simply for marketing reasons.

Sad that Android needs quad-core processing, honestly.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why a phone needs a quad-core processor...
What is this going to accomplish? Having the ability to play Crysis on the go or something?

Don't get me wrong though - I'm for moving forward, but this is just getting a little ridiculous...

AWilliams87 said,

Exactly. WP8 should already come supported for quads; even if it's simply for marketing reasons.

This may come as a bit of a shock, but the enthusiasts who have any idea what quadcore even means (and thus are the only people such marketing would have any effect on) make up a trivial spitwad of a percentage of the smartphone userbase.

It would literally (and I mean literally, literally--not this new-fangled 'figuratively' literally) be wasting the customer's money so that their advertisements could waste the customer's time.

Joshie said,

This may come as a bit of a shock, but the enthusiasts who have any idea what quadcore even means (and thus are the only people such marketing would have any effect on) make up a trivial spitwad of a percentage of the smartphone userbase.

It would literally (and I mean literally, literally--not this new-fangled 'figuratively' literally) be wasting the customer's money so that their advertisements could waste the customer's time.


How do you know it would be a waste of time?

AWilliams87 said,

Exactly. WP8 should already come supported for quads; even if it's simply for marketing reasons.

If recent rumors are true and WP8 is based on Windows NT, then WP8 would support hundreds of cores.

Auroka said,
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why a phone needs a quad-core processor...
What is this going to accomplish? Having the ability to play Crysis on the go or something?

It all comes down to who has the bigger E-Peen-S. Since Blandroid has nothing to offer but a half-baked iPhone OS, they need something to make the techno-nerds squizz all over. Next week they'll have Octo-Core support and then dual Octo-core chips.

Don't get me wrong though - I'm for moving forward, but this is just getting a little ridiculous...

smooth3006 said,
Wp7 is leaps behind android. Quad core specs were released today.

Why...? Dual core phones have pathetic battery life atm. You want to throw in a quad core processor and get even less?

Battery tech hasn't really kept up with the other advancements so quite honestly I would rather they spent more time and money researching battery capacity instead of throwing more and more cores into a phone.

rkenshin said,

Sad that Android needs quad-core processing, honestly.


Needs? No. Would be nice to have? Definitely.

Shoot, you don't even really need a dual core with android. It runs fine with just one.

smooth3006 said,
Wp7 is leaps behind android. Quad core specs were released today.
Actually WP7 is leaps ahead of Android not behind it to be honest. Android, which has potential, is still a mess (which ICS will help clean up alittle though) and the fact even the new flagship Galaxy Nexus suffers from "Android lag" is not promising. I'm no WP7 fanboy either, if anything I'm actually an Android fanboy (own an Android phone and tablet) but as much as I love Android, it's far from perfect. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

SharpGreen said,

Needs? No. Would be nice to have? Definitely.

Shoot, you don't even really need a dual core with android. It runs fine with just one.

Not true. Find me a single-core Android phone that runs the software well. I have two Android phones that are single core, and this is not the case (Droid X and HTC Incredible). To run the Android platform well, manufacturers are having to add higher clock speeds with dual core processing, as well as more RAM.

rkenshin said,

Not true. Find me a single-core Android phone that runs the software well. I have two Android phones that are single core, and this is not the case (Droid X and HTC Incredible). To run the Android platform well, manufacturers are having to add higher clock speeds with dual core processing, as well as more RAM.

actually my htc legend running on android 2.3.7 seems to run the platform rather wlel, the apps i use are smooth and responsive. i dont get wha tthis lag is that everyone is talkign about, i definatly dont have it

DKAngel said,

actually my htc legend running on android 2.3.7 seems to run the platform rather wlel, the apps i use are smooth and responsive. i dont get wha tthis lag is that everyone is talkign about, i definatly dont have it

Rooting your phone shouldn't be the remedy for lag. The general consumer, which Android targets, is not going to root their phone, nor should they have to. It should just work out of the box and work well for the life of the device.

Xerxes said,
Actually WP7 is leaps ahead of Android not behind it to be honest. Android, which has potential, is still a mess (which ICS will help clean up alittle though) and the fact even the new flagship Galaxy Nexus suffers from "Android lag" is not promising. I'm no WP7 fanboy either, if anything I'm actually an Android fanboy (own an Android phone and tablet) but as much as I love Android, it's far from perfect. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

I dig your attitude in this post. If fans of a product refuse to see and acknowledge the product's shortcomings, it will never get better. This is why Apple/MS/Firefox/Google/whoever's engineers and designers are incredibly vocal among their peers about problems with their projects even while fanboy kiddies on the web are spouting crap about the infallibility of those same developers.

Apple iPhone 4 didn't have Dual Core processor. Apple iPhone 4S has a dual core...that's more than a year iirc. What you are saying is that they should ramp up development time to support dual-core processors correctly. How do you expect them to do that? Please don't say add more people, because that would be the incorrect answer.

You probably don't remember what were the specs for gta3 when it was released....
it wasn't required to use a dual core not even a single core at 1ghz.

azerothl said,
You probably don't remember what were the specs for gta3 when it was released....
it wasn't required to use a dual core not even a single core at 1ghz.

True (time does fly), but these are ARM chips that use well under 1w of energy. You can't really compare them to x86 chips by simply looking at the frequency and number of cores.

Why in the world would a flippin' phone ever need a dual core processor? If you want to play GTA 3, take your laptop.

Gerowen said,
Why in the world would a flippin' phone ever need a dual core processor? If you want to play GTA 3, take your laptop.

Why in the world would a "flippin" phone ever need a web browser or a music player?

AWilliams87 said,

Why in the world would a "flippin" phone ever need a web browser or a music player?

Exactly. They don't. It's a phone, a device used to communicate with people who are too far away to yell at. People are overcomplicating things. I went to the Verizon stand to get a pre-paid phone the other day, they don't make cheap-o phones that don't have 3G and a webcam built in...

I disagree with this editorial. Just because people want dual cores doesn't mean the need for them is there. Why push expensive technology when it's not needed.

ccoltmanm said,
I disagree with this editorial. Just because people want dual cores doesn't mean the need for them is there. Why push expensive technology when it's not needed.

How do you know there's no need?

ccoltmanm said,
I disagree with this editorial. Just because people want dual cores doesn't mean the need for them is there. Why push expensive technology when it's not needed.

It's not really as expensive as you seem to think. The dual-core processor in the iPhone 4s is estimated to cost $15.

Agreed. These are much better points. However:

I think that since Windows Phone 7 is based off of Windows CE, which didn't even get dual-core support until March of this year, and considering Windows Phone is moving to the Win8 codebase, it didn't make sense to switch from the WinCE 6/7 kernel to the WinCE 7.0 Kernel to the Win 6.2 Kernel in a years time. That's a LOT of work for a brand new OS.

There is some flaw in this. Your saying that "...Apple cooked up dual core support less than a half of a year later...", but not on the mobile platform. This was for the iPad 2. Only until the past few weeks was the iPhone 4S now supporting dual core processor. Are you comparing phones in this editorial, or are you cross-examining this to the Apple iPad 2? Otherwise, up until now, the iPhone 4 had a single core processor, until as of late.

But according to some here at Neowin Apple sells obsolete hardware at higher prices, so going by that Windows Phone should have been shipping with dual cores for a year or two now.

Stetson said,
But according to some here at Neowin Apple sells obsolete hardware at higher prices, so going by that Windows Phone should have been shipping with dual cores for a year or two now.

Lol, Windows Phone is only a year old.

rkenshin said,
There is some flaw in this. Your saying that "...Apple cooked up dual core support less than a half of a year later...", but not on the mobile platform. This was for the iPad 2. Only until the past few weeks was the iPhone 4S now supporting dual core processor. Are you comparing phones in this editorial, or are you cross-examining this to the Apple iPad 2? Otherwise, up until now, the iPhone 4 had a single core processor, until as of late.

I'm sorry, but if dual-core support was added to the iPad 2 it was added on the platform level. How else would it be added?

And of course up until now the iPhone 4 had a single-core. They didn't update it until now, and dual-core support wasn't going to magically make the phone have a second core. Platform/software-level support was added with the iPad 2, and the iPhone 4S utilized what was already developed

If you are Comparating platforms WinCE already has SMP support (In v7 released march 2011) .
Microsoft is waiting for something ;perhaps for the NT kernal to replace the CE kernel

The reality is that the majority of users don't have spec lust. What matters is the execution and how well the software performs on its hardware.

That is why the iPhone still seems to be winning while the tech geeks always get to yell that Apple is never first with any real new innovations. The average users don't notice that Android phones generally have higher clocked phones or more RAM or whatever. They care that the iPhone works well...

So Microsoft will need dual core when the execution of the OS seems to suffer to the End User.

The major advantage of Dual Core is moot on Windows Phone 7. Only 1 application can run at a time and background processes have extreme limits (they can only execute a few times in a given time span and utilize less than 5% of the CPU) so the end user most likely will never know they lack a Dual Core phone.

Frazell Thomas said,
The reality is that the majority of users don't have spec lust. What matters is the execution and how well the software performs on its hardware.

That is why the iPhone still seems to be winning while the tech geeks always get to yell that Apple is never first with any real new innovations. The average users don't notice that Android phones generally have higher clocked phones or more RAM or whatever. They care that the iPhone works well...

So Microsoft will need dual core when the execution of the OS seems to suffer to the End User.

The major advantage of Dual Core is moot on Windows Phone 7. Only 1 application can run at a time and background processes have extreme limits (they can only execute a few times in a given time span and utilize less than 5% of the CPU) so the end user most likely will never know they lack a Dual Core phone.

I agree. Honestly, it comes down to software optimization. Your right, they don't care about those "internal tech specs" of the iPhone. They just care that it works, quickly, and works well. The same honestly goes for Windows Phone. Android suffers with this, as it needs to harness more power to run the operating system well. I just recently left the Android platform, as this was one of my reasons out of many.

rkenshin said,

I agree. Honestly, it comes down to software optimization. Your right, they don't care about those "internal tech specs" of the iPhone. They just care that it works, quickly, and works well. The same honestly goes for Windows Phone. Android suffers with this, as it needs to harness more power to run the operating system well. I just recently left the Android platform, as this was one of my reasons out of many.


Totally agree. Stats don't matter. An Android phone could have triple the stats of the Windows Phone, but if it's laggy and crashes a lot on me then I'm going to go with the "it just works" choice.

GaMMa said,

Totally agree. Stats don't matter. An Android phone could have triple the stats of the Windows Phone, but if it's laggy and crashes a lot on me then I'm going to go with the "it just works" choice.

Just imagine how much better WP would run if it did run on a dual core set...

AWilliams87 said,

Just imagine how much better WP would run if it did run on a dual core set...

Multiple core programming is identical to multiprocessor programming. It isn't the same as higher clocked single core/processor programming...

When you have one core/processor and you increase the amount of calculations the chip can crunch (usually, but now always via a higher clock speed) all applications will benefit without any additional work needed to be done by the developer. It just go faster.

More than one core/processor requires more work to be done by the developer. The task has to now be split, by the developer, across all available cores in order to get a performance increase. Without additional work being done by the developer the multi-core chip won't perform any better than a single core chip (as the other cores will sit idle).

Parallel programming (multiple core/processor) isn't easy. This is why we have had a decade of multi-core processors and we still need features like "turbo boost" (overclocking of the one in use core when additional cores sit idle) on desktop processors. You still have a hard time finding applications that can fully utilize dual core CPU's let alone quad cores.

Just throwing more cores in a phone won't make anything magically faster...

Frazell Thomas said,

Multiple core programming is identical to multiprocessor programming. It isn't the same as higher clocked single core/processor programming...

When you have one core/processor and you increase the amount of calculations the chip can crunch (usually, but now always via a higher clock speed) all applications will benefit without any additional work needed to be done by the developer. It just go faster.

More than one core/processor requires more work to be done by the developer. The task has to now be split, by the developer, across all available cores in order to get a performance increase. Without additional work being done by the developer the multi-core chip won't perform any better than a single core chip (as the other cores will sit idle).

Parallel programming (multiple core/processor) isn't easy. This is why we have had a decade of multi-core processors and we still need features like "turbo boost" (overclocking of the one in use core when additional cores sit idle) on desktop processors. You still have a hard time finding applications that can fully utilize dual core CPU's let alone quad cores.

Just throwing more cores in a phone won't make anything magically faster...


Most modern games and many software are optimized for dual cores now. It isn't a rarity to not find software that isn't. This isn't 2002.

AWilliams87 said,

Most modern games and many software are optimized for dual cores now. It isn't a rarity to not find software that isn't. This isn't 2002.

You'd be surprised, but there aren't many real multi-core optimized games. Mainly because Direct X didn't get Multi-core support until DX 11 and there aren't yet a plethora of DX 11 games.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Direct3D#Direct3D_11

The gains of multi-core processors for gamers has been that the OS and system tasks have a lower impact on game performance, but these issues don't exist on a mobile device.

Tony Gorham said,
trolling for traffic again SHAME on YOU - that's me done, I dont NEED to read NEOWIN there are other blogs

It's an EDITORIAL. It's called speaking your mind.

Tony Gorham said,
trolling for traffic again SHAME on YOU - that's me done, I dont NEED to read NEOWIN there are other blogs

The article has a point. There's no excuse for WP to have outdated hardware at the same price as the competition. Why would I get a single core WP when I can get a dual core Android for the same price or less?

Tony Gorham said,
trolling for traffic again SHAME on YOU - that's me done, I dont NEED to read NEOWIN there are other blogs

Consumer choice rocks doesn't it

Joey S said,

The article has a point. There's no excuse for WP to have outdated hardware at the same price as the competition. Why would I get a single core WP when I can get a dual core Android for the same price or less?

The article is pointless. There's every excuse for WP to cost as much as the crappy Android devices, simply because WP offers so much more than those inferior platforms.

Tom said,
They don't need dual-cores.

I agree. The Windows Phone 7.5 OS seems to handle well. Besdies, who needs to play GTA III in 2011? We have GTA V now.

smooth3006 said,

Yes they do.

like Android...

They don't need DC to run the basic OS and most apps...

To run some high end game however... of course they do...
Same as Computers don't need Xeon's or I7's... but to run the high end stuff of course they do...

itylernallen said,

I agree. The Windows Phone 7.5 OS seems to handle well. Besdies, who needs to play GTA III in 2011? We have GTA V now.

GTA III ran on a 294.912 megahertz PlayStation 2 with 32 megabytes of RD ram, porting GTA III over to a 1 GHz windows phone with 448 MB of ram shouldn't be impossible.

Tom said,
They don't need dual-cores.

don't agree they need dual core with best graphics
they need to make three categories for the os
high medium and low to take the market to their side

Tom said,
They don't need dual-cores.

The Android phones and the iPhone 4S didn't need dual-cores either. But they had (basically) all positives and like no negatives when it came to including them. So why not?

Likewise, people don't need to live in mansions. We can all live just fine in apartments or single-story houses. But wouldn't you rather live in a mansion if given the choice?

I'm not saying that they do need dual-cores though. I'm just saying, there's nothing to lose by having them.

Dale said,

GTA III ran on a 294.912 megahertz PlayStation 2 with 32 megabytes of RD ram, porting GTA III over to a 1 GHz windows phone with 448 MB of ram shouldn't be impossible.

Don't forget a console only needs to run the game. The phone runs LOADS more processes in the background such as the dialer, messaging, cell connection, operating system tasks, etc.

Scorpus said,

Don't forget a console only needs to run the game. The phone runs LOADS more processes in the background such as the dialer, messaging, cell connection, operating system tasks, etc.

So you're telling me that Windows Phone can't run GTAIII but it can run Splinter Cell Convinction....ok boss.

JaykeBird said,
The Android phones and the iPhone 4S didn't need dual-cores either. But they had (basically) all positives and like no negatives when it came to including them. So why not?

Likewise, people don't need to live in mansions. We can all live just fine in apartments or single-story houses. But wouldn't you rather live in a mansion if given the choice?

I'm not saying that they do need dual-cores though. I'm just saying, there's nothing to lose by having them.

Incorrect.

The iPhone 4S lost a third (from 300 hours to 200 hours) of its idle time simply because it added the dual core chip. Conveniently unmentioned by everyone.

To continue your mansion metaphor: mansions require more more time and money to keep them up, and in high quality. There are more places for things to go wrong, and most people don't have enough stuff to fill them anyway. In fact, everyone getting their version of a mansion when they shouldn't is the entire reason the economy collapsed.

That is to say, people are buying more than they need--dual cores that are not only unnecessary, but also inefficiently used. This results in poorer than expected performance, as well as a downright bad user experience due to a dead battery before the end of a single day of use. Even the iPhone 4S is struggling due to a mixture of bugs and an unnecessary chip; turning off a lot of the location services does dramatically improve performance, but guess where they're doing all of that background processing to begin with? The GPS/WiFi unit, and I bet both cores are unintelligently active for the bevy of background threads that those services require, giving more insult to injury.

No, Microsoft is doing this right. They will roll out multicore support for WP8, alongside multicore ARM support in Windows 8. It will be solid, and the battery will suffer less as a result, but it will still suffer modestly (the new nVidia chip would be a prime example of doing multicore right, with the 5th "idle" core used for sleep mode and sleep-based background tasks). In the mean time, its users get one less piece of hardware to wave around, but they can still brag about winning the clockspeed war, and achieving smoother performance as a result, with as-long-as-possible of a battery life to boot.

itylernallen said,

I agree. The Windows Phone 7.5 OS seems to handle well. Besdies, who needs to play GTA III in 2011? We have GTA V now.

Say goodbye to Windows Phone because people don't want it if WP does not dual core for gaming.

itylernallen said,

I agree. The Windows Phone 7.5 OS seems to handle well. Besdies, who needs to play GTA III in 2011? We have GTA V now.

So a WP7 phone won't run GTA III, but will run GTA V fine?

I find "WP7 needs Dual-Core" is kinda like "Windows 7 needs quad core".
This is about "Gaming on WP7 needs Dual Core".

Tom said,
They don't need dual-cores.

I completely disagree. Dual core cpu's are now the standard for multitasking mobile OS's. Adapt or die. It's simple darwinism.

If you want WP to succeed, you should be pushing it to match hardware specs instead of trying to justify it's failings.

Joey S said,

I completely disagree. Dual core cpu's are now the standard for multitasking mobile OS's. Adapt or die. It's simple darwinism.

If you want WP to succeed, you should be pushing it to match hardware specs instead of trying to justify it's failings.

Fact is, Android will be laggy even with 10 cores. WP is WAY faster than Android even on a single core processor. So, having dual-core support is not needed to "compete with other platforms". WP is way ahead already. If they add dual-core it will be even further ahead. But the difference is already so big, it won't be even noticable.

england_fanboy said,

Fact is, Android will be laggy even with 10 cores. WP is WAY faster than Android even on a single core processor. So, having dual-core support is not needed to "compete with other platforms". WP is way ahead already. If they add dual-core it will be even further ahead. But the difference is already so big, it won't be even noticable.

Please show me my Stock SGS2 on Sprint and it's lag. Till you can do that please learn something and stop being a troll.

JaykeBird said,

The Android phones and the iPhone 4S didn't need dual-cores either. But they had (basically) all positives and like no negatives when it came to including them. So why not?

Likewise, people don't need to live in mansions. We can all live just fine in apartments or single-story houses. But wouldn't you rather live in a mansion if given the choice?

I'm not saying that they do need dual-cores though. I'm just saying, there's nothing to lose by having them.

Horrible analogy. NO, I would NOT want to live in a mansion given the choice. That's just ridiculous. And, just to amplify the lunacy of that thought, look at the economic mess we got into BECAUSE so many people thought they'd rather live in houses that were WAY more than they needed or could afford. So, try another analogy.

The more complicated games get for phones, the less I want to play them, especially when every high spec phone is solely touch screen. The only game played on my WP7 is Wordament (best game ever, highly recommend).

If you actually use your phone for other functions than gaming throughout the day, I'm 100% sure you won't be playing GTA 3 on your daily commute. Unless you have 10 spare batteries. Plus I'm pretty sure you would get annoyed with the controls 5 minutes in.

It seems like the main points for dual-core in WP7 are gaming and editing:
- The only editing I can see needed for pictures on the go (i.e without a laptop/desktop to do proper editing) is white balancing, saturation and the like, pretty sure you don't need a dual-core for that. You aren't going to need photoshop like tools on your touch phone.
- Console games on phones seem pointless to me, but ok I'll accept this.

The only proper argument I can see is marketing, and this is actually a good reason for Microsoft to get it out quickly, just so there is a 'top-end' WP7 phone to compete with the marketing of the iPhone and Android phones.

pickypg said,
Incorrect.

The iPhone 4S lost a third (from 300 hours to 200 hours) of its idle time simply because it added the dual core chip. Conveniently unmentioned by everyone.

To continue your mansion metaphor: mansions require more more time and money to keep them up, and in high quality. There are more places for things to go wrong, and most people don't have enough stuff to fill them anyway. In fact, everyone getting their version of a mansion when they shouldn't is the entire reason the economy collapsed.

That is to say, people are buying more than they need--dual cores that are not only unnecessary, but also inefficiently used. This results in poorer than expected performance, as well as a downright bad user experience due to a dead battery before the end of a single day of use. Even the iPhone 4S is struggling due to a mixture of bugs and an unnecessary chip; turning off a lot of the location services does dramatically improve performance, but guess where they're doing all of that background processing to begin with? The GPS/WiFi unit, and I bet both cores are unintelligently active for the bevy of background threads that those services require, giving more insult to injury.

No, Microsoft is doing this right. They will roll out multicore support for WP8, alongside multicore ARM support in Windows 8. It will be solid, and the battery will suffer less as a result, but it will still suffer modestly (the new nVidia chip would be a prime example of doing multicore right, with the 5th "idle" core used for sleep mode and sleep-based background tasks). In the mean time, its users get one less piece of hardware to wave around, but they can still brag about winning the clockspeed war, and achieving smoother performance as a result, with as-long-as-possible of a battery life to boot.

At the time, the mansion metaphor made more sense to me...

And I personally have not had much experience with an iPhone, so I don't know THAT much about it. But the point I made was based upon the points raised in the article.