Windows Phone 8 will reportedly support 1080p, quad-core processors by year's end


Microsoft is reportedly preparing to update Windows Phone 8 to support devices with larger screens.

Microsoft will reportedly update Windows Phone 8 to support devices with 1080p screens and quad-core ARM chips by the end of the year, according to a new report.

The update, the next general distribution release for the platform, will also support devices with 5-inch screens and larger, according to The Verge. Additionally, the release will reportedly support new ARM chips from Qualcomm, marking the first time Windows Phone has supported quad-core processors. The Verge states the update isn't part of Windows Phone Blue, which it claims will be released early next year.

New devices will make use of the new support when its released before the holiday season, according to the report.

The news should be welcomed by HTC, which allegedly scrapped plans for a large-screen Windows Phone 8 device code-named "Zenith" late last year. Those plans were scrapped because they conflicted with Microsoft's guidelines for the platform, as Windows Phone 8 devices currently can't exceed a resolution of either 1280x720 or 1280x768.

Source: The Verge

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Chinese state-run media criticizing Surface Pro warranty

Next Story

What will Microsoft call the next Windows update beyond Windows 8.1? [Update]

56 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm not getting it. WP is based on NT kernel (which already supports unlimited? number of cores). What prevented WP8 from using more than 2 cores?

HighwayGlider said,
I'm not getting it. WP is based on NT kernel (which already supports unlimited? number of cores). What prevented WP8 from using more than 2 cores?

They have to make sure the OS will support Qualcomm's quad core chipsets without a hitch. Perhaps they didn't include the optimizations for their quad core architecture. Just because the NT core can handle it doesn't mean the OS is ready for it.

Uhm, is it? I for one am typically never out of reach from an USB port for more then 4-5 hours on end. Plus even on heavy usage the only way to drain the battery within 5 hours is to enable everything and play the final 2 levels of CastleMine non-stop.
And if I am, I enable battery saver, disable wifi/Bluetooth and the phone will run for 3 days without breaking a sweat.

People might call this late but I see it as moving the market ahead while not making developers lives a pain. One thing to keep in mind is that by controlling the hardware more they try and make sure that regardless of high end or low end phone you get the same smooth experience and access to apps and games. Though there are already a small number of games that need 1GB of ram to run which leave out the bigger mid-low end market. That's really not good overall for the platform imo.

By spacing this out now they can make 1080p with 4 cores the new high end with 720p and dual core the new lower end starting to drop 480x800 in 2014.

quad core ARM processors hey?

More like, Quad core Qualcomm Snapdragon processors.

Unless they really are planning on supporting more ARM implementations, which would be good news for chip makers and device manufacturers alike.

deadonthefloor said,
quad core ARM processors hey?

More like, Quad core Qualcomm Snapdragon processors.

Unless they really are planning on supporting more ARM implementations, which would be good news for chip makers and device manufacturers alike.

They could but who? I suppose they can toss in NVidia tegra as a option for those who want a 5"+ phone but after that?

GP007 said,
They could but who? I suppose they can toss in NVidia tegra as a option for those who want a 5"+ phone but after that?

Don't forget Ti and Samsung.
I bet if Samsung wasn't forced to use Qualcomm they might make a decent WP for a change.
There are a lot of ARM players compared to x86.
With Windows Blue being a unified update/development strategy around the NT Kernel, the next update should at least support the same ARM partners that Windows RT has certified.

The only thing really that had me wanting more cores on a phone was iPhone 4 days & any time I've used an android device (Actually my transformer prime hasn't been too bad since jelly bean but room for improvement, and that is quad core to be fair )

I've never had a time I could accuse my 920 of not keeping up =P Manages just fine with it's dual core, and my sisters 800 manages without a hitch too =)

Only real reason for faster cores is for gaming or to combat android lag, and that's on it's way out anyway. Until the graphics part of the chips is considerably faster, dual is plenty.

FFS! As much as I love hardware improvements, when are we going to get better battery technology?! I want a smartphone with dumbphone battery life!

I'm pretty sure there are smartphones with great battery life, ones with 480p screens and slower processors but with bigger batteries from the higher end for example. Or at least better battery life if not great =P

I don't mind chucking my 920 on the wireless charger every night, not a problem =)

tsupersonic said,
FFS! As much as I love hardware improvements, when are we going to get better battery technology?! I want a smartphone with dumbphone battery life!

Get a 920, make sure its the last version. Disable Wifi and Bluetooth, set brightness to the lowest level and keep it on Battery saver. It will run for 3-4 days on moderate usage.

http://r-p-m.eu/images/uploads/wp_ss_20130409_0001.png

This is on above moderate use. I've browsed the web for about 2-3 hours. Played the mirrors edge demo and a couple of times Words with Friends in between. It syncs email every 15minutes to 2 accounts. I constantly check email on it. Took about 6 pictures and more little things. Couple of phone calls, texting with whatsapp.
Everything enabled wifi, bleutooth, highest. brightness level.

Must say 11 hours since last charge and ~60% left. I'd love to see a S3 or iPhone5 challenge that.

If I keep my usage low, it challenges the standby time of my 6310i which was ~5 days.

the 820 or other lumia's will surely do fine too, but no personal experience with it so I cant suggest it

Edited by ShadowMajestic, Apr 9 2013, 6:06pm :

Shadowzz said,

Get a 920, make sure its the last version. Disable Wifi and Bluetooth, set brightness to the lowest level and keep it on Battery saver. It will run for 3-4 days on moderate usage.

http://r-p-m.eu/images/uploads/wp_ss_20130409_0001.png

This is on above moderate use. I've browsed the web for about 3-4 hours. Played the mirrors edge demo and a couple of times Words with Friends in between. It syncs email every 15minutes to 2 accounts. I constantly check email on it. Took about 6 pictures and more little things. Couple of phone calls, texting with whatsapp.
Everything enabled wifi, bleutooth, highest. brightness level.

Must say 11 hours since last charge and ~60% left. I'd love to see a S3 or iPhone5 challenge that.

If I keep my usage low, it challenges the standby time of my 6310i which was ~5 days.

the 820 or other lumia's will surely do fine too, but no personal experience with it so I cant suggest it

You shouldn't have to turn off GPS, mobile data radios, WiFi, Bluetooth, email sync, etc. I want 4-5 days battery life with everything ON. I don't mind charging my phone every night either (mainly because I almost have to on the stock battery), but come on, batteries need improvement /rant

tsupersonic said,
You shouldn't have to turn off GPS, mobile data radios, WiFi, Bluetooth, email sync, etc. I want 4-5 days battery life with everything ON. I don't mind charging my phone every night either (mainly because I almost have to on the stock battery), but come on, batteries need improvement /rant

Get a small nuclear reactor then.
Even the old dumb phones would die within a day with GPS or Bluetooth turned on constantly.

Batteries can surely need improvement and the 'are' working on it. Problem is its lethal sh*t you are dealing with. To keep it save for consumers... took dozens of years before they got batteries that stopped randomly exploding or leaking. Even today that can still happen. And its no fun to get battery acid all over you, or have a phone exploding in your pocket.

Optimize the software or bigger batteries are the only things they can really do at the moment.

Shadowzz said,

Get a small nuclear reactor then.
Even the old dumb phones would die within a day with GPS or Bluetooth turned on constantly.

Batteries can surely need improvement and the 'are' working on it. Problem is its lethal sh*t you are dealing with. To keep it save for consumers... took dozens of years before they got batteries that stopped randomly exploding or leaking. Even today that can still happen. And its no fun to get battery acid all over you, or have a phone exploding in your pocket.

Optimize the software or bigger batteries are the only things they can really do at the moment.

See, and this is the mindset that isn't driving any innovation in that department. You hear about laptops (Macbooks) and iPods with exploding batteries, but those cases are pretty rare. Hardware is advancing so rapidly, battery technology isn't keeping up with it. Instead all we have is manufacturers focusing on wireless charging. I don't know what kind of dumb phones you used, but when I mean dumb phones, I mean phones that could call/text/cameras/and had bluetooth (no GPS/WiFi/etc.). I guess I'm the only one who wants to see battery technology improve... :\

tsupersonic said,
See, and this is the mindset that isn't driving any innovation in that department. You hear about laptops (Macbooks) and iPods with exploding batteries, but those cases are pretty rare. Hardware is advancing so rapidly, battery technology isn't keeping up with it. Instead all we have is manufacturers focusing on wireless charging. I don't know what kind of dumb phones you used, but when I mean dumb phones, I mean phones that could call/text/cameras/and had bluetooth (no GPS/WiFi/etc.). I guess I'm the only one who wants to see battery technology improve... :\

Everyone wants to see battery technology improve! And they are working on it! But, unfortunately, like Shadowzz said, they have to find ways to put these unstable chemicals and elements together in ways that don't explode and packages that keep them stable! Try becoming a chemist and inventing your own new battery technology, then tell us how easy it was. Until the chemists can figure this out, we have to optimize current technology!

tsupersonic said,
See, and this is the mindset that isn't driving any innovation in that department. You hear about laptops (Macbooks) and iPods with exploding batteries, but those cases are pretty rare. Hardware is advancing so rapidly, battery technology isn't keeping up with it. Instead all we have is manufacturers focusing on wireless charging. I don't know what kind of dumb phones you used, but when I mean dumb phones, I mean phones that could call/text/cameras/and had bluetooth (no GPS/WiFi/etc.). I guess I'm the only one who wants to see battery technology improve... :\

No it doesn't happen regularly, because the tech been around for a very very long time. Yet it still happens. There are some new techniques but they are either very expensive, or not stable enough for consumer markets. And you're by far not the only one, I cant wait for better designs to be practical. But it isn't easy and very expensive. For now I rather have them focus on lightweight OS that use the power they receive as good as they can. This will only be better in the future, rather then letting them use all the power they can get their hands on. It does force OS and apps to optimize rather then just code away and create bloated POS (like many games that look like they're 5 years old and still run like crap on today's mid-end GFX cards )

How about X86 CPU's. A few months ago I read an article about Intel working with Microsoft on X86 support for WP.

Microsoft is really dragging its heels when it comes to supporting new hardware. Quad-core Android phones like the HTC One X have been available for a year now and 1080p Android phones like the HTC J Butteryfly have been available for over six months, yet Windows Phone isn't looking to support such hardware until much later in the year.

Arguments can be made as to the efficiency of each platform but the fact that manufacturers have had to abandon planned devices due to platform restrictions demonstrates that Microsoft is failing to respond to the market.

theyarecomingforyou said,
....platform restrictions demonstrates that Microsoft is failing to respond to the market.

What you call failure, I call a calculated approach.
Why bite off more than you can chew. WP would perform like Android if they generically supported any ARM architecture out of the gate.

deadonthefloor said,
What you call failure, I call a calculated approach.

There's nothing "calculated" about it. Microsoft is simply not responding to the market quickly enough, as evidenced by manufacturers scrapping planned devices. Enthusiasts want cutting edges specs, while those on a budget want the cheapest device they can get - Windows Phone caters poorly to both those groups, as it is a more rigid platform.

theyarecomingforyou said,

There's nothing "calculated" about it. Microsoft is simply not responding to the market quickly enough, as evidenced by manufacturers scrapping planned devices. Enthusiasts want cutting edges specs, while those on a budget want the cheapest device they can get - Windows Phone caters poorly to both those groups, as it is a more rigid platform.


Tell me mate, what can you not do smooth on a dual core 920 that you can do on a quad core s3?
Wait what, NOTHING?
Why are you on a tech site, all you seem to care about is fancy specs, not the inner workings.

Nokia is releasing a 50 bucks WP device, not cheap enough? You want it for free or want to be given money for your purchase?
Cutting edge specs... my Lumia 920 will outdo the S3 and iPhone 5 any time, any where.
Better camera, build in wireless charging, NFC, best screen out of the 3 (really, s3 and iphone 5 users keep saying that the screen of my 920 is stunning) and BY FAR the best battery life. Especially since last update my phone can easily hold 2 days on moderate usage. I'd love to see you try that on the S3 or iPhone 5 with everything enabled (wifi, NFC, 3g/LTE, Bluetooth). I do wanna try to see how long it will last with wifi/bleutooth off and on battery saver, im sure it'll get close or over 4 days. Please tell me what other flagship smartphone can do this.

But no, it doesn't have a quad core so its not cutting edge... how shallow can you be dude.
Its "just" a dual core, yet it has none of the slowdowns the S3 quadcore has.

But please, be a shallow ****, enjoy mate. But at least keep it to your opinion, you keep acting like your opinion is a fact. While you obviously haven't even TOUCHED a WP8 device. Even the Lumia 820 is smoother then any mid-end android I have ever used.

theyarecomingforyou said,

There's nothing "calculated" about it. Microsoft is simply not responding to the market quickly enough, as evidenced by manufacturers scrapping planned devices. Enthusiasts want cutting edges specs, while those on a budget want the cheapest device they can get - Windows Phone caters poorly to both those groups, as it is a more rigid platform.

Which is why Nokia Lumia devices outsell any other smartphone platform in emerging markets (ones who CAN'T afford these high end devices)! Nokia has a Lumia for EVERY market (520, 620, 720, 820, and 920). So, because HTC scrapped a 5-inch phone, Microsoft is poorly catering to EVERY market out there? My dual-core Lumia 920 is faster and more efficient than any quad-core Android device out there! Hell, even my old Samsung Focus and Focus S beat the pants off of these quad-core Android devices! Microsoft is brilliant with what they are doing. They are taking the best parts of iOS (optimizing the OS for the chipset) and the best parts of Android (allowing OEMs to customize devices) while keeping the OS from becoming a monstrosity (both in terms of performance and efficiency).

theyarecomingforyou said,

There's nothing "calculated" about it. Microsoft is simply not responding to the market quickly enough, as evidenced by manufacturers scrapping planned devices. Enthusiasts want cutting edges specs, while those on a budget want the cheapest device they can get - Windows Phone caters poorly to both those groups, as it is a more rigid platform.


Nokia has a range of devices, from high-end to low-end. Windows phone caters to both groups pretty well. The best part is how the low-end performs almost exactly like a high-end device. Android's low end are all, well, crap.

Probably won't notice much difference in everyday usage compared to the dual-core chips of today! I'm delighted with my Lumia 920 as it is, and I say this coming from a Galaxy Note 2.

L920 said,
Probably won't notice much difference in everyday usage compared to the dual-core chips of today! I'm delighted with my Lumia 920 as it is, and I say this coming from a Galaxy Note 2.

Same here. I AM excited about 1080p and 5"+ screen support though. I want a giant phone. I love my GN2 size but I love the L920 OS.

MDboyz said,
Well this is the hardware game that MS has to enter. Consumers only care how it is on the paper.

Yeah, they have to enter it but they don't have to rush to the top. They're taking their time and allowing developers the chance to keep up and not get lost in trying to support a large number of hardware builds out there.

GP007 said,

Yeah, they have to enter it but they don't have to rush to the top. They're taking their time and allowing developers the chance to keep up and not get lost in trying to support a large number of hardware builds out there.

And given that software on Windows Phones scale automatically (with only a few minor graphic adjustments for screen sizes), it still won't be hard to support more configurations. Just make sure you code the app to make the best possible use of the phone's RAM, and you won't have any problems!

Doesnt really matter for HTC because Nokia will also have access to the updated specs and just as with WP8 now the hardware playing field will be the same so no advantage at all for HTC, same as with android where they have hardware parity with Samsung and are still being destroyed in sales. I'm more excited to see what Nokia will do with the updated hardware specs.

Well, better late than never. Interesting from another perspective too, because this will then likely leave only the iPhone with a dual core. I bet Apple will still use the dual core A6X CPU for their iPhone 5S. Giving users a possible quad core A7 CPU would be too generous, and not fit into their incremental money milking machine.

Late?
I have a 920... And I have not encountered a single slowdown. Yes an app might load faster on a quadcore, but this difference will be very little. And the only thing that ever showed an FPS drop to me was CastleMine in the last few rounds of the higher levels. And this is because of poor coding, not because the phone lacks the power.
I suggest you use a dual core WP8 handset and see how smooth it is for yourself instead of thinking "But android has quad core, so it must be better".

Honestly, My full desktop machine I use for gaming has a 4 year old amd quad core in it and I still have no need for a faster processor. I've seen how the dark knight ran on my phone and it looked beautiful and ran smoothly. Why is a quad core cpu for a phone really a big deal?

blackjezuz said,
Honestly, My full desktop machine I use for gaming has a 4 year old amd quad core in it and I still have no need for a faster processor. I've seen how the dark knight ran on my phone and it looked beautiful and ran smoothly. Why is a quad core cpu for a phone really a big deal?

Hardware always runs faster than software. Remember the developers have to learn the hardware advances to fully take advantage of them and there has to be enough of an install base to make that worthwhile. Quad core chips in your phone won't offer a boost immediately, like they didn't in your desktop, but over time they will offer benefits as developers take better advantage of them.

If the OS scheduler is done right multiple cores can also offer immediate benefits to you. Background jobs and functions can be offloaded to additional cores. Allowing them to run at full speed without impacting the program running in the foreground, for instance.

-adrian- said,
no - we need quad core because the system is lagging so much

The system is not lagging but I guess new games will eventually lag, requiring more power

LogicalApex said,

Hardware always runs faster than software. Remember the developers have to learn the hardware advances to fully take advantage of them and there has to be enough of an install base to make that worthwhile. Quad core chips in your phone won't offer a boost immediately, like they didn't in your desktop, but over time they will offer benefits as developers take better advantage of them.

If the OS scheduler is done right multiple cores can also offer immediate benefits to you. Background jobs and functions can be offloaded to additional cores. Allowing them to run at full speed without impacting the program running in the foreground, for instance.

Hey Logical. That is all and good with PCs, but with mobile phones the battery life is the one that takes the hit.

The thing that we all really have to ask, is quad core really neccessary at this point (as you stated, it will take some time), or is this really just a marketing gimmick? Granted in time, Devs will learn how to optimize all cores, but would battery life follow suit? And do we really need to multitask Fruit Ninja, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and SMS on a small screen?

RommelS said,

Hey Logical. That is all and good with PCs, but with mobile phones the battery life is the one that takes the hit.

The thing that we all really have to ask, is quad core really neccessary at this point (as you stated, it will take some time), or is this really just a marketing gimmick? Granted in time, Devs will learn how to optimize all cores, but would battery life follow suit? And do we really need to multitask Fruit Ninja, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and SMS on a small screen?

Realistically, battery life is a major reason for the push for more cores in mobile devices. With a multicore processor you can dynamically disable unused cores to reduce power usage where as in a lower core processor situation you'll need to rely on a faster processor to give the same performance. The single core processor, for instance, will need to be on all the time at a higher clock speed for the rare chance an app needs all of that power. Multicore processors can offload all the extra work to one or more extra cores to give the heavy task a dedicated core and the user a more responsive device while not killing the battery excessively (as the cores will be shut off later).

LogicalApex said,

Realistically, battery life is a major reason for the push for more cores in mobile devices. With a multicore processor you can dynamically disable unused cores to reduce power usage where as in a lower core processor situation you'll need to rely on a faster processor to give the same performance. The single core processor, for instance, will need to be on all the time at a higher clock speed for the rare chance an app needs all of that power. Multicore processors can offload all the extra work to one or more extra cores to give the heavy task a dedicated core and the user a more responsive device while not killing the battery excessively (as the cores will be shut off later).


or down clock the few cores (namely: two) you have to save power? Will save more than managing 8 cores.

Cool beans. You are the Man! Thanks for the refresh, as I totally forgot that part of "shutting down" unused cores. However, I am still not as convince about having more than a dual core (quad in Europe) for smartphones until we have apps that could really utlizile it. That's just me.

Crimson Rain said,

or down clock the few cores (namely: two) you have to save power? Will save more than managing 8 cores.

I mentioned only one of many techniques that are used in managing the power draw of a CPU. The quad core mobile CPU would implement many techniques at the same time.

RommelS said,
Cool beans. You are the Man! Thanks for the refresh, as I totally forgot that part of "shutting down" unused cores. However, I am still not as convince about having more than a dual core (quad in Europe) for smartphones until we have apps that could really utlizile it. That's just me.

The problem is the apps can't arrive before the hardware. Otherwise, you'd have an app to publish that no one can run and, as a result, you can't sell.

Actually, I am thinking more of a time frame, like now. It has been a few years or so since the inception of multi-cores on smartphones. I wonder if it is because the way we use our smartphones; consumer - videos, text, social media, games, personal emails / corprorate - majority is about emails.

the NT kernel supports unlimited cores. the reason has more to do with making sure the 4 core cpus deliver battery life. if you've used a nexus 4, which has a 4 core cpu, you know how battery life is mediocre, so much so, google couldn't even put LTE on it because it is such cpu hog.

daniel_rh said,
So, this is the reason they're stuck in dual core processors

Do you feel stuck? At what time did you feel a quad-core processor would have benefitted? It has no impact on everyday use. Windows Phone is stil as smooth as ever and Android stil lags on quad-core.

I think that in the long run when full-blown operating systems like Windows merge with Windows Phone a qaud-core will be beneficial. But even my laptop is dual core and runs a full OS just fine. My Phone is much less demanding so dual-core is more then enough.

But I guess that for high-end users the specs do matter simply because they feel they can't have dual-core if someone else has quad core. So from that perspective I do welcome the addition. Its something WP needs to have to be competitive even if it is useless.

LogicalApex said,

Hardware always runs faster than software. Remember the developers have to learn the hardware advances to fully take advantage of them and there has to be enough of an install base to make that worthwhile. Quad core chips in your phone won't offer a boost immediately, like they didn't in your desktop, but over time they will offer benefits as developers take better advantage of them.


Hardware always ran faster then software? Are you new to tech?
This is only the case in recent years. Only around the Vista-Win7 time period, hardware finally catched up and surpassed software's requirements.
And quad core's are most definitely giving you a boost on Windows systems compared to dual core or lower. I did not notice the same increase when I went from my AMD dual core to my FX quad core on Linux Debian/Ubuntu. But the increase on Windows 7 and even more Windows 8 has been astonishing. And is most definitely noticeable.
They wont on Windows Phone, and that's only because if they would use the performance increase, the battery drain would be far larger.

Shadowzz said,

Hardware always ran faster then software? Are you new to tech?
This is only the case in recent years. Only around the Vista-Win7 time period, hardware finally catched up and surpassed software's requirements.
And quad core's are most definitely giving you a boost on Windows systems compared to dual core or lower. I did not notice the same increase when I went from my AMD dual core to my FX quad core on Linux Debian/Ubuntu. But the increase on Windows 7 and even more Windows 8 has been astonishing. And is most definitely noticeable.
They wont on Windows Phone, and that's only because if they would use the performance increase, the battery drain would be far larger.

Depends on what you define as new...

It isn't a case only of recent years. The hardware is always racing ahead first and the software is playing catch up the only difference between now and "then" is that the hardware - software gap has grown so wide it has become harder and harder to see the gains with each iteration (on the desktop).

neonspark said,
the NT kernel supports unlimited cores. the reason has more to do with making sure the 4 core cpus deliver battery life. if you've used a nexus 4, which has a 4 core cpu, you know how battery life is mediocre, so much so, google couldn't even put LTE on it because it is such cpu hog.

There is more to the story than that. If it were as simple as what the Kernel supports then Windows Phones would already have quad core chips in them. Obviously, the OEMs would love to put whatever they can on the box to give their device the best chance of selling.

More than likely there are larges parts of Windows Phone that doesn't scale well to multiple cores and/or it won't properly handle things such as enabling and disabling cores dynamically under load. Possibly those and more stuff too...

LogicalApex said,

I mentioned only one of many techniques that are used in managing the power draw of a CPU. The quad core mobile CPU would implement many techniques at the same time.

The problem is the apps can't arrive before the hardware. Otherwise, you'd have an app to publish that no one can run and, as a result, you can't sell.


First tell me what benefit do you have using slower quad/octa cores instead of *faster* dual cores for a phone given todays battery situation?

LogicalApex said,

Depends on what you define as new...

It isn't a case only of recent years. The hardware is always racing ahead first and the software is playing catch up the only difference between now and "then" is that the hardware - software gap has grown so wide it has become harder and harder to see the gains with each iteration (on the desktop).

Yes it is, only between/around Vista-Windows 7 hardware catched up. Where for the latest game or photoshop, you didn't need the latest and greatest hardware to run it smooth.
Before this, every OS upgrade, you had to upgrade your hardware. Bought the latest and greatest hardware? Great in half a year we will release a game that you can only run in the lowests possible settings if at all.

Now... 3-4 year old hardware can run the latest games decent, the last OS (win8) runs properly on systems well into the XP days....



There is more to the story than that. If it were as simple as what the Kernel supports then Windows Phones would already have quad core chips in them. Obviously, the OEMs would love to put whatever they can on the box to give their device the best chance of selling.

More than likely there are larges parts of Windows Phone that doesn't scale well to multiple cores and/or it won't properly handle things such as enabling and disabling cores dynamically under load. Possibly those and more stuff too...


ARM chips are not like intel chips. Just because it supports 2 core ARM's, doesn't automatically make it support 4 cores ARMs, like is the case with X86.