backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by xype.. on Dec 1 at 9:24 AM

Exynos 5250 SoC is based on Cortex-A15 architecture

The mobile market is heating up with consumers flocking to smartphones and tablets in record numbers. Samsung is looking to strengthen its position in these markets thanks to the new Exynos 5250 SoC which is the follow-up to the Exynos 4210 used in the popular Galaxy S II.
 
The Exynos 5250 is built using a 32nm low-power HKMG (High-K Metal Gate) process and is based on ARM Cortex A15 architecture. The dual-core Exynos 5250 operates at a speedy 2GHz and has twice the processing performance of 1.5GHz, dual-core Cortex A9 processors according to Samsung.

 
But CPU performance isn't the only thing that's been improved; Samsung says that the Exynos 5250 delivers four times greater graphics performance than Cortex A9 designs (memory bandwidth has doubled to 12.8GB/sec). It also adds in Stereoscopic 3D functionality and support for resolutions up to 2560x1600 (WQXGA).
 
The Samsung Exynos 5250 SoC is being targeted at the tablet market and will go into mass production during Q2 2012.

Sources: Samsung, SammyHub



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By shane.carroll on 11/30/2011 1:18:49 PM , Rating: 3
and the award for computer engineer of the year goes to.... some guy who can never (even with a 12 core cpu) admit that an android powered phone doesn't suck.


By killerroach on 11/30/2011 1:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
2GHz Cortex A15-based CPU would likely be a huge improvement over a 1.5GHz A9, both in terms of raw clock and performance per clock. You're likely talking twice as fast without getting into more cores - meaning that this new Exynos might, even in a dual-core configuration, likely be faster than the quad-core (but rather pedestrian architecturally) Tegra 3 parts in CPU performance.


GPU?
By ltcommanderdata on 11/30/2011 9:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
Any word on who designed the GPU? ARM or are they returning to PowerVR?




Incremental improvement
By mcnabney on 11/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Incremental improvement
By amanojaku on 11/30/2011 9:40:04 AM , Rating: 5
Q: What does Apple have to do with this? A: Nothing. Apple's CPUs have always been slower than competitors', only just recently hitting 1GHz. I'm past the point of annoyance at seeing Apple associated with everything technological.

And this isn't a bump, according to Samsung. Twice the performance, if accurate, is a leap, especially when the clock speed is only 33% more (1.5GHz->2GHz).


RE: Incremental improvement
By Spuke on 11/30/2011 9:53:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Q: What does Apple have to do with this?
I'm not an Apple basher at all, I happen to think they make good products and I have recommended them to others, but really WTF does Apple have to do with this?


RE: Incremental improvement
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/30/2011 9:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing he's referencing the fact that the it's almost guaranteed that the iPad 3 will have a 2048x1536 display (double the current resolution).

But even still, it's not like Apple makes its own displays...


RE: Incremental improvement
By amanojaku on 11/30/2011 10:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I misread the bit about the iPad display potentially pushing competing products to increased resolutions. Thing is, I don't see why that's necessary. Current tablets, including the iPad, look fine, even if they don't do HD. Of course, since I don't own a tablet I can't say I've used one for a significant period of time. My concern is the push for higher resolutions and such will keep tablet prices higher than they should be. Tablets should be $200, not $500, since they can't do what a PC (Linux, Mac, Windows, etc...) does. Yet.


RE: Incremental improvement
By twhittet on 11/30/2011 10:59:42 AM , Rating: 4
I'm hoping the push for higher tablet resolution will finally help make the low resolution, poor quality displays we find in most laptops unacceptable. I do not want or need a $1200 laptop, I need a $350 laptop with an option to upgrade the screen for $100! Mass production of more higher res screens should lead to better products for everyone across the board.


RE: Incremental improvement
By bntran02 on 11/30/2011 11:06:45 AM , Rating: 3
High resolution is just more marketing. There a long list of other factors that determine image quality. Resolution tends to be at the bottom of that list


RE: Incremental improvement
By Mint on 11/30/2011 3:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
It'll take so little effort, too. All I want is for notebook makers to make screens that match the quality of desktop TN monitors.

How hard can that be? But nooo, we have to live with awful 200:1 contrast ratios for virtually all notebooks below $1000, while a $100 desktop monitor with 3-4x the LCD surface gets near 1000:1. If Asus can put a high contrast screen on an eeePC, why cant we find them in mainstream notebooks?

I understand the lack of consumer education on the topic, and Anandtech does a great job on that front in their reviews, but with the plethora of notebook makers out there you'd think at least a few would want to differentiate themselves with a $50 screen upgrade.


RE: Incremental improvement
By omnicronx on 11/30/2011 1:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
I have my doubts that pushing tablet resolutions will have such an effect until long after higher resolution screens are implemented in tablets. Neither OSX nor Windows have true resolution independence (i think OSX is further along, and have some kind of half baked implementation). Until they do, and developers actually implement it, everything on your screen will shrink as you increase the resolution of the display.

iOS is somewhat there, i.e even if they double the resolution, the size of the objects on the screen should not shrink or become destorted. (aside from situations such as a dev using non vector imaging like a bitmap)

This allows for higher resolutions on smaller displays, while still keeping everything readable for the vast majority of situations.


RE: Incremental improvement
By SPOOFE on 11/30/2011 7:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tablets should be $200, not $500, since they can't do what a PC (Linux, Mac, Windows, etc...) does.

IPS screen? Ten hour battery life? Under three pounds? Not a thousand dollars?

In at least a few regards tablets can do MORE than what a PC does.


RE: Incremental improvement
By amanojaku on 11/30/2011 9:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't represent the mainstream, I don't consider surfing the 'net and playing Angry Birds for 10 hours "doing something".

Some of the latest Ultrabooks have IPS screens, 5-8 hours of battery life (supposedly), and weigh around three pounds. Sure, the prices range from $800-$1300, but that includes a full-blown x86 processor (i3-i7), 4GiB of RAM, SSDs up to 128GB (at least one has a HD), and 13" displays. You could dump your tablet AND PC for an Ultrabook, and run more software than is available for a tablet while benefiting from mobility. You get improved connectivity, too. The GPUs... I dunno, I read different things, some good, some bad. Apparently, HD 3000 is decent enough to replace a low end video card, so my guess is it can compete with a PowerVR on some level. Actually, it looks like the HD 3000 beats the hell out of the PowerVR offerings, but I haven't seen a direct comparison.

Still not convinced a tablet is worth it at $500.


RE: Incremental improvement
By xype on 11/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Incremental improvement
By icrf on 11/30/2011 10:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's a GPU chart, not CPU.


RE: Incremental improvement
By xype on 11/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Incremental improvement
By SPOOFE on 11/30/2011 7:28:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And, pray tell, what good is a mobile CPU if its GPU performance sucks?

You can still, ya know, compute. Doesn't take much GPU to surf the web.


RE: Incremental improvement
By xype on 12/1/2011 9:24:32 AM , Rating: 1
If your browser doesn’t use the GPU to render the websites it doesn’t. But hey, we all know Chrome had GPU-acceleration way before Safari, amirite?


RE: Incremental improvement
By Helbore on 12/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: Incremental improvement
By Jeremy87 on 11/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Incremental improvement
By EasyC on 11/30/2011 10:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
Myth: Apple is a technology God with the best specs evARrrRr!!!oneone!1!
Fact: My Acer W500 windows tablet has a higher resolution screen than any tablet Apple... and runs real applications.


RE: Incremental improvement
By xype on 11/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Incremental improvement
By SPOOFE on 11/30/2011 7:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
"I guess we have Apple to thank for that."

I know at least one fanboy hasn't been paying attention. :)


RE: Incremental improvement
By Johnmcl7 on 11/30/2011 12:49:18 PM , Rating: 5
For some time it was Apple that was being destroyed in resolution with people frequently defending it then when Apple finally woke up and have the iPhone4 a better screen suddenly Apple are the driving force behind resolution. I guess people just have very short or poor memories but suffice to say apple are not the driving force behind anything technological given they're a few years behind just as they are with displays. Their superb marketing does a great job making people think otherwise however.

(This post as typed on a phone with a 1280x800 screen, higher than both the current iPhone and Ipad and it's not made by Apple...)


RE: Incremental improvement
By danjw1 on 11/30/2011 10:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
Apple revived the tablet market, that had been written off as dead. Also, Apple has apps; Android doesn't have all that many tablet oriented apps yet. Hopefully, with the release of Ice Cream Sandwich, we will see a lot more of that for Android.


RE: Incremental improvement
By SPOOFE on 11/30/2011 7:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, to say they revived a market is to suggest that market had any strength to begin with. Tablets have always been a lukewarm segment, with only a few sectors having a decided need for the form factor. As such they've always been priced with the expectation that only a few would sell.

Apple was the first to recognize that A: high-performance computing wasn't necessary for a consumer device, and B: that if you price it right people will actually buy it. When the iPad was announced at $500, everyone was surprised because they were expecting a tablet like all that have come before: Bigger, heavier, more capable, stuffed with laptop PC hardware and all the bells and whistles that come with it... and with a price tag to match.


RE: Incremental improvement
By bug77 on 11/30/2011 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple's CPUs have always been slower than competitors', only just recently hitting 1GHz.


Maybe, but Apple's GHz is better than everybody else's. So they're faster even when they're slower.


RE: Incremental improvement
By steven975 on 11/30/2011 1:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, CPU-wise, Apple competes just fine. Graphics-wise, they blow everyone out of the water as no one else will run a large chip.

And this is from a person with no Apple devices at all. Just giving credit where credit is due. Not saying that the A4/A5 are Apple designs...they aren't. They just use better components in their SoCs. In the case of the i5, more GPU, less RAM.


RE: Incremental improvement
By TakinYourPoints on 11/30/2011 2:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
Since when did clock speed mean everything? AMD proved it nearly 10 years ago when a lower clocked Athlon XP outperformed a Pentium 3, and it's happening now when you see an AMD Bulldozer that is barely competitive with a lower clocked i7 from two years ago.

It's a similar case with the A5. Part of the issue is obviously pre-ICS Android being so inefficient, but there are still hard computational limits that current Android hardware has. Doesn't matter how highly it is clocked if practical performance doesn't measure up. Even the Tegra 3 in preliminary GPU benchmarks is falling short of the A5. We'll see how the official ones are soon enough.


RE: Incremental improvement
By steven975 on 11/30/2011 3:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the Tegra3 is worse because Nvidia pumped it full of CPU cores for marketing reasons, and then went with a lower-end GPU. Ideally, they should have made it dual or triple-core with a SGX543 GPU. More overall performance from the same die. But a "quad core" has marketing oomph I guess.

I find it odd that Nvidia won't use it's own GPU design for their ARM offerings.

Also, the AthlonXP was pretty comparable to a P3 on a clock-clock basis...just the P3 was phased out at something like ~1.3Ghz (and only then in a very niche market). The P4 was the XP's competitor, and AMD outdid it heftily...unless you considered the not-oft-used for the time SSE2 functions where the P4 blew it away.


RE: Incremental improvement
By Penti on 12/1/2011 12:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's a whole new architecture so it's far from a speedbump, it's a new CPU architecture and a new GPU architecture. Apple themselves are pretty far from releasing a Cortex A15 core as of yet. A whole new SoC is a whole new SoC and certainly is far more newsworthy then a speedbump.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki