Rumor: Nokia "EOS" flagship to pack a quad-core chipset

We've seen bits and pieces of information trickle out surrounding the Nokia "EOS", the upcoming Windows Phone Lumia flagship that's said to be a true successor to the Lumia 920, with another leak today potentially giving us more solid specifications of the device. My Nokia Blog is reporting that, alongside a 41-megapixel PureView camera sensor, that the "EOS" will feature a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 chipset.

Although, Nokia is apparently only testing the Snapdragon 800 at the moment, and they have a back-up dual-core chipset ready to go just in case the 800 is not suitable. Battery life is reportedly an issue from the high-powered quad-core chipset, which can run at up to 2.3 GHz, despite the fact that Qualcomm has packed numerous speed-for-speed power efficiency improvements into the new chipset.

Aside from the "EOS" potentially including a Snapdragon 800, word on the streets is that Nokia has returned to AMOLED display technology, ditching IPS LCD panels like we saw in the Lumia 920 to potentially save battery life and physical size. The "EOS" is said to include a 1280 x 768 display, so no 1080p for Windows Phones just yet, and the battery will reportedly stay the same size as the Lumia 920 - 2,000 mAh.

Other rumored specs for the device include both an LED and Xenon flash for the 41-megapixel PureView camera, a more detailed camera UI that will apparently be similar to the 808 PureView, expandable storage through a microSD card slot, and an FM transmitter. If the rumors are to be believed, the "EOS" will launch on AT&T first in the United States as an exclusive, following a worldwide launch sometime after that.

Meanwhile, Nokia also has a number of other devices in the works, including the Lumia 928 and the "Catwalk", both of which could make an appearance alongside the "EOS" at a launch event sometime soon.

Source: My Nokia Blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

EA shutting down three of its Facebook-based games

Next Story

Facebook considering bringing Home to Windows Phone, iPhone [Update]

66 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"...and an FM transmitter"

This for me is key as (if the rumours/leaks are true) it means FM radio (at least) is returning to Windows Phone. This was one downside for me when making the switch from WP7 to WP8.

like someone has said before, WP8 does not support 1080p atm so why put in a screen that cant be used at that resolution yet.

Id say they may put in a quad core to help speed up the process of doing what the 41mp camera does and the pureview software. Might take some power to do stuff with images at that resolution and making it lag or take ages wont be helping the lumia.

That phone looks good though. 10 months and counting till end of my contract, the futures bright the futures nokia

1080p is nice,but Nokia is not playing the cram all the specs you can game. They're creating an experience while keeping costs down,and I doubt 1080p is the deciding factor when choosing one of their phones.

vcfan said,
1080p is nice,but Nokia is not playing the cram all the specs you can game. They're creating an experience while keeping costs down,and I doubt 1080p is the deciding factor when choosing one of their phones.

It should be.

mrdeezus said,

It should be.

Why? For the lower battery life? 1080p screens require more GPU power to drive, and take more power to drive to the same brightness.

There's little reason for 1080p on a phone. It's just a spec measuring contest.

Damn it... I want to get a Windows Phone but I dont know when to jump onboard.

I currently have an iPhone 5 on Verizon.

I'd like to get the Verizon version of the Lumia 920... but now I see this EOS device, which sounds better. Guess I'll just keep on waiting?

Maybe I'll keep on waiting and i'll never actually get anything :-/

MidTxWRX said,
Damn it... I want to get a Windows Phone but I dont know when to jump onboard.

I currently have an iPhone 5 on Verizon.

I'd like to get the Verizon version of the Lumia 920... but now I see this EOS device, which sounds better. Guess I'll just keep on waiting?

Maybe I'll keep on waiting and i'll never actually get anything :-/


I feel the same way... It would be easier if some of these phones (like the 928) actually came out! Lol

In my personal opinion, the big issue here is the way that these companies tell the public what new devices will be coming out ...a year from now.

I would rather it be similar to the way Apple does it, where they hold all information about the device (leaks will occur) and announce it on a specific day.

That way I can say. Damn I want that. And I'm able to go purchase it and feel like I have a device that will be relevant at least for a whole year. Which is a long time in this age of technology.

With Windows Phone and Android, I feel like if I go buy the current new device, a better one will come out next week. I can wait until next week to purchase the new one, but if I check online, I'll see that there's an even better coming out in 6 months. And an even better one in 12 months. Wtf.

I cant afford to purchase every new device... so I have to buy the best I can afford at the moment.

MidTxWRX said,
In my personal opinion, the big issue here is the way that these companies tell the public what new devices will be coming out ...a year from now.

I would rather it be similar to the way Apple does it, where they hold all information about the device (leaks will occur) and announce it on a specific day.

That way I can say. Damn I want that. And I'm able to go purchase it and feel like I have a device that will be relevant at least for a whole year. Which is a long time in this age of technology.

With Windows Phone and Android, I feel like if I go buy the current new device, a better one will come out next week. I can wait until next week to purchase the new one, but if I check online, I'll see that there's an even better coming out in 6 months. And an even better one in 12 months. Wtf.

I cant afford to purchase every new device... so I have to buy the best I can afford at the moment.

On one hand I agree. On the other hand I always feel bad for people who were buying the latest iphone the day before the new latest iphone comes out. The only winner there is the manu.

R1pper said,
it's funny, all those tiny details, and not once, just one time, is it said what "EOS" stand for.

EOS means all other smartphone camera are ****.

R1pper said,
it's funny, all those tiny details, and not once, just one time, is it said what "EOS" stand for.

End of story. For other smartphones!

astalvfnw said,
i thought nokia said they dont need quad core

They don't need it. WP has proven itself to be lightning fast on **** hardware, compared to the other mobile OSes out there.

If the OS and chipset are smart about it, however, it may lead to power savings.

Mordkanin said,

They don't need it. WP has proven itself to be lightning fast on **** hardware, compared to the other mobile OSes out there.

If the OS and chipset are smart about it, however, it may lead to power savings.


then whats the point of quad core now? if you say to still improve speed then they should have stfu at that time

astalvfnw said,

then whats the point of quad core now? they should have stfu at that time

Because at this point why not? Even though it doesn't need it, the price is not more expensive now than a single core and neither is the power consumption with smart software. If I gave you a choice of $100 dual core with a battery life of 20hours or a $100 quad core with a battery life of 20hours which would you pick?

Mordkanin said,

They don't need it. WP has proven itself to be lightning fast on **** hardware, compared to the other mobile OSes out there.

That's because it isn't doing much "under the hood". Give it time and features and you'll see the Microsoft we all know reappear. 1080p is useless for the vast majority. Crazy good camera everyone at some point will appreciate, multiple cores will be appreciated as well. They're getting it right. Still won't buy a windows phone anytime soon though for the same reason I waited on Android.

astalvfnw said,

then whats the point of quad core now? if you say to still improve speed then they should have stfu at that time

To play Crysis 3 mobile.

Hahaiah said,

That's because it isn't doing much "under the hood". Give it time and features and you'll see the Microsoft we all know reappear. 1080p is useless for the vast majority. Crazy good camera everyone at some point will appreciate, multiple cores will be appreciated as well. They're getting it right. Still won't buy a windows phone anytime soon though for the same reason I waited on Android.


Uhm, Windows 8 surely has more build in features then Vista. Yet it runs smoother and faster on the hardware that was designed for Vista.
Stupid statement, but please try again. The only route NT/Windows seems to take is being more and more lightweight. They are even trying to make NT a microkernel...

Mordkanin said,

They don't need it. WP has proven itself to be lightning fast on **** hardware, compared to the other mobile OSes out there.

If the OS and chipset are smart about it, however, it may lead to power savings.


+1

SharpGreen said,

Source?

NT was always designed to be a microkernel. Back then, when NT was first released, hardware was too slow so they moved a couple userland things (like graphics) back into the kernel. Since Vista, MS has been working on reducing dependencies and simplifying the kernel. This does make it smaller, but I'm not sure they are moving things back into userland (which would be required to make it more of a microkernel.) NT is already more of a microkernel than any other popular kernel so I don't know that it is required.

Shadowzz said,

Uhm, Windows 8 surely has more build in features then Vista. Yet it runs smoother and faster on the hardware that was designed for Vista.
Stupid statement, but please try again. The only route NT/Windows seems to take is being more and more lightweight. They are even trying to make NT a microkernel...

Talk about stupid statements. Maybe you should reread a few things.

BannanaNinja said,

NT was always designed to be a microkernel. Back then, when NT was first released, hardware was too slow so they moved a couple userland things (like graphics) back into the kernel. Since Vista, MS has been working on reducing dependencies and simplifying the kernel. This does make it smaller, but I'm not sure they are moving things back into userland (which would be required to make it more of a microkernel.) NT is already more of a microkernel than any other popular kernel so I don't know that it is required.


NT is not a microkernel. MS never claimed that. NT is a heavy kernel compared to others.
There's a reason why it took untill recent years before NT was able to properly run on ARM. The ARM CPU wasnt able to handle anything more then a micro kernel. NT's minimum requirements are relatively high compared to just Linux, BSD etc.
But i think it was around or even before Windows 7. Where Microsoft deemed it nessesary to lighten the kernel. There was a blog post about it few months ago, maybe a bit longer.

The Micro NT kernel was a side project, just to make the kernel lighter. They used some of this in the Win8 NT kernel.
No direct source, keep yourself updated on the Windows dev blogs, technet/msdn.

It's the hardware game that they have to follow. Since consumers only care about the specs not the phone performance.

astalvfnw said,

then whats the point of quad core now? if you say to still improve speed then they should have stfu at that time

BannanaNinja said,

NT was always designed to be a microkernel. Back then, when NT was first released, hardware was too slow so they moved a couple userland things (like graphics) back into the kernel. Since Vista, MS has been working on reducing dependencies and simplifying the kernel. This does make it smaller, but I'm not sure they are moving things back into userland (which would be required to make it more of a microkernel.) NT is already more of a microkernel than any other popular kernel so I don't know that it is required.


Actually no it was never a microkernel. More of a hybrid for exactly the reasons you just mentioned. Some bits are in kernel mode, others not. For a microkernel, everything that is not essential to the running of said kernel is supposed to be in userland. Display, sound, network, file system, etc. etc.

Shadowzz said,

The ARM CPU wasnt able to handle anything more then a micro kernel.

Do you even know what a Microkernel is? Hint: Linux is a monolithic kernel, not s Microkernel...

Shadowzz said,

NT is not a microkernel. MS never claimed that. NT is a heavy kernel compared to others.
There's a reason why it took untill recent years before NT was able to properly run on ARM. The ARM CPU wasnt able to handle anything more then a micro kernel. NT's minimum requirements are relatively high compared to just Linux, BSD etc.

This is a contradiction. Microkernels are generally slower because they have most things running in userland. This means lots of context switches between kernel and user mode which takes time. Microkernels trade speed for simplicity and stability.

SharpGreen said,

Actually no it was never a microkernel. More of a hybrid for exactly the reasons you just mentioned. Some bits are in kernel mode, others not. For a microkernel, everything that is not essential to the running of said kernel is supposed to be in userland. Display, sound, network, file system, etc. etc.

While I don't disagree that it is now a hybrid kernel, originally NT did have much more of it running in userland. I guess we can argue the semantics of whether or not it was enough to be a microkernel, but the point still stands that NT was designed to be more microkernel-like than other kernel.

Not impressed. A 1280x768 display isn't competitive with competing flagship handsets and the 2000mAh battery is underpowered, particularly considering it is embedded. It's like Nokia has learnt nothing from the Lumia 920.

Caleo said,
1080p on phones is a bit ridiculous.
For some reason people think you need that kind of resolution on a 4" device. I don't understand the obsession with such a useless stat at that form factor. Or, perhaps I'm the only one that doesn't hold my phone a couple of inches from my face.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Is it really any more ridiculous than quad-core processors?

while I firmly believe that quad core processors are not necessary for windows phones to run smoothly (unlike androids which do require strong CPUs), having better processors does allow the device to run more processing intensive apps and games.

Having higher resolution, however, does not seem to provide any benefit aside from having higher pixel density. Rather, it seems that having high res screens on 4 inch devices is a detriment because more pixels being pushed requires more graphics power which may require more battery life.

WP8 don't support 1080p so they can't have this anyway. It will get support towards the end of the year at which point i'm sure Nokia will have a new phone for it.

But i think for a phone that concentrates on high quality images, it could really do with a high quality 1080p display to view those images. You can definitely see a difference between 720p and 1080p on 4.5 - 5" displays, it might be pretty small but you can see it.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Is it really any more ridiculous than quad-core processors?

Yes. Because unlike a quad-core processor, which can actually lend power savings, if the chipset and software are *very* smart about it, a 1080p screen will ultimately end up sacrificing brightness and power, all for no real increase in clarity.

It takes more GPU power to run a 1080p screen, and the extinction through it will be higher, requiring a brighter, more power-hungry backlight for the same brightness level.

My vision is picture perfect and I cannot distinguish pixels on my 920. Not with a magnifying glass.. Anything above 300 PPI is more then suited.

I can only see pixels when I view the screenshots on my desktop screen hehe.

MrHumpty said,
For some reason people think you need that kind of resolution on a 4" device. I don't understand the obsession with such a useless stat at that form factor. Or, perhaps I'm the only one that doesn't hold my phone a couple of inches from my face.

The 920 is already a 4.5" device.

MrHumpty said,
For some reason people think you need that kind of resolution on a 4" device. I don't understand the obsession with such a useless stat at that form factor. Or, perhaps I'm the only one that doesn't hold my phone a couple of inches from my face.

because higher resolutions totally don't improve sharpness of text and overall quality. Nope. /s

SharpGreen said,

because higher resolutions totally don't improve sharpness of text and overall quality. Nope. /s

Not at these pixel densities, no. There's a limit to how much your eye can discern.

Like I said, the increased extinction from the display may actually hurt things by requiring a brighter backlight to achieve the same brightness levels.

Mordkanin said,
Not at these pixel densities, no. There's a limit to how much your eye can discern.

There are other factors involved. For instance, there is a quality loss and performance hit when you resize content from 1080p to a lower resolution. Having a phone with a 1080p display also makes it better for cloning content to a 1080p HDTV.

My current phone has a DPI of 250 and I can see the pixels when viewed closely (i.e. how I'd normally use it when in bed). I haven't used the 330 DPI display of the Lumia 920 but I have to believe that the 440 DPI of 5" 1080p phones offers an improvement, even if it is relatively small. But that's what enthusiasts want. Are most apps optimised for quad-core or octo-core? No, but people still want faster processors.

The discussion on 1080p phones reminds me of the era when people claimed you couldn't tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and one at 320kbps. People swore blind that they couldn't tell the difference but it was very noticeable to audiophiles.

Fritzly said,

The 920 is already a 4.5" device.

Granted, I wasn't commenting to the spec of this phone in particular. The same is true for 4.5.

SharpGreen said,
because higher resolutions totally don't improve sharpness of text and overall quality. Nope. /s
That doesn't really matter if you can't see it.

theyarecomingforyou said,
audiophiles.

Oh yeah, there's a good example group. Audiophiles are the butt of many-a-electrical engineering joke around the water cooler...

theyarecomingforyou said,

Is it really any more ridiculous than quad-core processors?

no because you don't need to use all 4 core.cpu at once. Better off having an extra core to phone uses when playing games when needed.

Pfft, 1080p? I'll only be happy when my phone is ****ing 4k! I want to take a microscope to the ****** and still not be able to count the pixels!


Specs wars are patently stupid.

siah1214 said,
Pfft, 1080p? I'll only be happy when my phone is ****ing 4k!

Speaking of 4K, in order to get the same pixel density (440 DPI) on a 30" monitor you'd need a 12K monitor (11520x6480). It makes you realise how far behind monitor technology really is.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Speaking of 4K, in order to get the same pixel density (440 DPI) on a 30" monitor you'd need a 12K monitor (11520x6480). It makes you realise how far behind monitor technology really is.

Behind what? Behind what people would pay for? Hell most people's phones cost more than their TV's.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Speaking of 4K, in order to get the same pixel density (440 DPI) on a 30" monitor you'd need a 12K monitor (11520x6480). It makes you realise how far behind monitor technology really is.

Its not a matter of being behind. You never hold a monitor or TV as close to your eyes as you do your phone, so they do not need as high a DPI (though, monitors could do with denser displays). Having smartphone class displays in your monitor is just paying money for something that does not bring you any benefits at all. Same goes for 400+ PPI displays on smartphones. I would gladly settle with a ~300 PPI display (and get associated power savings due to less GPU capacity requirement) and use the money saved this way on a better camera or larger battery.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Behind where the technology is.
Dude the tech is there. People just won't pay for it. I don't understand why people don't realize that. They aren't just going to start pumping out 440ppi 30" TV's cause some stat-whores think they should be available. Someone has to pay for the R&D, Manufacturing Retooling, Raw Materials etc. We're seeing 4k+ tv's showing up that are we all know are pretty much made for the super rich at this point.

Hell even with Monitors at this point.

http://www.amazon.com/ViewSoni...sr=1-1&keywords=monitor
30" 1080P - 399.99

Or,
http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Ult...sr=1-2&keywords=monitor

30" 1600 for $1099.99

The average person isn't dying to pay 2.75 times the price for that ppi.

We all know we don't "Need" 1080p screens and quad core but that's not the point. The point is to sell phones and gain market share and specs matter for theses reasons only. Sure we don't need octacores and 1080p but they sound cool.

mrdeezus said,
We all know we don't "Need" 1080p screens and quad core but that's not the point. The point is to sell phones and gain market share and specs matter for theses reasons only. Sure we don't need octacores and 1080p but they sound cool.
I kind of agree with you. However, most people aren't stat-junkies. They are brand junkies.

For the sake of a good argument for 1080p. I have a very specific use-case where I really appreciate crazy resolutions. I'm short sighted and when I have my glasses off I have extremely short focal range, which makes high resolutions really pleasant if I'm lying in bed using my phone

You can just about notice pixels at 720p/on an iPhone at that distance too, although if they start talking higher than 1080p they're really taking the **** unless it's a monocle