Print 43 comment(s) - last by Motoman.. on Apr 19 at 4:20 PM

May sell CPUs to other manufacturers under new brand line

Although it's still early in the game and Samsung hasn't made anything resembling an official announcement, South Korean web portal Daum reports that Samsung has set its sights on doubling the speed of the now ubiquitous 1GHz processor by next year.

"We are planning to release a 2Ghz dual-core CPU-equipped smartphone by next year. This product will have the data processing capacities of a regular PC," an unnamed high-ranking official from Samsung told Daum.

Samsung announced its first 1GHz dual-core processor, dubbed Orion, last September, with plans for it to power mobile devices in 2011. A smartphone with dual 2GHz CPUs will come close to matching the computing power of many desktop PCS, which regularly clock in between 3 and 4GHz, Daum wrote.

The 2GHz dual-core CPUs may also be sold separately to other phone makers. They will likely launch under the new Exynos brand. The first Exynos processor, a 1GHz dual-core variant, will power the Galaxy S II.

Comments     Threshold

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

Not impressed
By bug77 on 4/18/2011 8:59:10 AM , Rating: 5
I'd much rather they released a smartphone that requires charging once a week. Or less.

RE: Not impressed
By Breathless on 4/18/2011 9:01:12 AM , Rating: 2
What he said

RE: Not impressed
By Visual on 4/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Not impressed
By vapore0n on 4/18/2011 9:40:48 AM , Rating: 3
And all that is what Samsung (and other manufacturers) need to work on.
This is turning into a core/Ghz race, same as it did back in the days of intel vs amd. Now think, more power means bigger or denser batteries, which means a warm fuzzy feeling in your butt cheeks (unless you use a murse).

RE: Not impressed
By Suntan on 4/18/2011 1:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t know what subject you’re replying to but I can safely say that I don’t use a man purse and I’ve never had anything even remotely close to this “warm and fuzzy in my butt cheeks” you talk about.

I know people usually complain about the technical competence of the workers at the average cell phone store, but the guy that explained how to use phones to you really didn’t know what he was talking about…


RE: Not impressed
By vapore0n on 4/18/2011 4:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Considering you barely use your phone (half hour talk time a week) I could see why you dont feel the burn while using the phone. But for us that do use the phone to its potential, the phones can get quite hot, and adding a bigger battery, a bigger amp drain, a 2ghz space heater, will just make it even hotter.

Ever heard of cellphones causing brain damage due to the heat right next to your head?

What I really want is phone companies to start thinking about battery life. So far they just put nice big screens, dual core processors, heavy graphics power, and in the end there is battery life. The user get a really good experience with the phone, but he is now ties to a secondary battery, a bigger one, or a power cable. I remember the days when cellphones needed a backpack that was the battery itself.

RE: Not impressed
By Alexstarfire on 4/19/2011 2:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
I've only had my phone, a Samsung Captivate, get hot in 1 of 2 scenarios. The first one is when it's hot and sunny outside. Pretty much any object will get hot in those conditions, at least the outside since I never checked the CPU/GPU temps. The second one being when I'm running some graphic intense games. TBH, I think only one actually did, maybe two, and 1 was an MMORPG. Thing sucked up power like it was going bad, actually was still dying while I was charging it while I was playing. In the latter situation you won't have it next to your head. Yes, if you get a call you'll move it to your head but that's hardly the point. In both of those situations any phone will get hot.

You make several assumptions which, quite frankly, don't have to be true at all.

I've heard that cell phones do and don't cause cancer. I've also heard that basically just breathing causes cancer so I really couldn't care less if it actually does or not.

RE: Not impressed
By GreenEnvt on 4/18/2011 9:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how you are getting once a week.
I use my Galaxy S frugally, also doing less then 30 minutes of calls a week. I have a gmail account registered using the gmal client.
If I just let it check mail, reply to the odd one here and there, I get 3 days. Not horrible, but not great.

If I actually use it to surf webpages, I can easily kill a full charge in a few hours.

RE: Not impressed
By VahnTitrio on 4/18/2011 10:43:46 AM , Rating: 4
A week is probably asking for too much. I'd like a phone that you could use heavily with all the features enabled and still last from the time I rise in the morning until I go to bed, for the full lifetime of the phone. I don't mind charging overnight.

RE: Not impressed
By Motoman on 4/18/2011 11:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
...why? For what possible reason would you not just plug your phone in when you go to bed at night anyway?

RE: Not impressed
By bug77 on 4/18/2011 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Because my old Moto taught me I don't need to.

Plus, I use it as an alarm clock and there's no outlet next to my bed.

RE: Not impressed
By DanNeely on 4/18/2011 1:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
One of the things i like about my 6 year old dumbphone is that I can go on vacation for a few days and not have to worry about a packing a charger.

RE: Not impressed
By Capt Caveman on 4/18/2011 7:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'd rather they develop a processor that uses half the power of a current processor.

ARM on netbooks?
By quiksilvr on 4/18/2011 8:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
This opens up a whole new realm of opportunities here. Imagine having a 12" laptop that's running off a motherboard that is fanless? And we already know Windows 7/8 is capable of running on ARM chips. We can be pushing some serious battery life in the ultraportable market with these things.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By bug77 on 4/18/2011 9:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
Windows may run on ARM, but you still need drivers. Remember how painful was the switch from 32 to 64 bit drivers for Windows? I don't imagine moving to ARM to be any less complicated.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By DanNeely on 4/18/2011 9:48:18 AM , Rating: 4
Never mind drivers, you need software compiled for arm, not x86. That right there is going to be the killer.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By StevoLincolnite on 4/18/2011 10:58:23 AM , Rating: 2

Although to Microsoft's credit they do release awesome developer tools.
I don't doubt that re-compiling software to be compatible with ARM should be fairly painless experience.

Either that or they make a software emulation layer for x86 code to be executed on ARM.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By DanNeely on 4/18/2011 11:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
Asusming that:

0) The developer cares enough to put effort into supporting a version of the platform that (at least initially) will have fewer users than windows 95.

1) All the 3rd party libraries used in the application have source available, or their authors are willing to provide new binaries. The latter could be an issue if as well if the new binaries come with an additional cost (eg only the newest version of the library supports arm, and that's a paid upgrade).

2) There's no x86 assembly code anywhere in the codebase. This could be an serious issue for some types of libraries, particularly high performance ones like video codecs where accessing CPU features that aren't easily available via C++ can give major performance gains.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By Motoman on 4/18/2011 11:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Anything going through an emulation layer is going to run poorly. As will anything just "compiled" for a different platform as opposed to being optimized, then compiled for it.

IF such a thing were to happen, you'd have lots of those 2 things happening at first...but you'd be well off to wait for natively optimized apps before jumping in.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By ET on 4/19/2011 11:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of software will work out of the box. That's the advantage of .NET.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By Gondor on 4/18/2011 1:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why would writing drivers for whatever new pheripheral devices such am ARM-based computer would come with be any different than writing drivers for new pheripheral devices on x86 platform ?

Existing drivers don't even have to be rewritten from scratch, if they were written properly in the first place.

And as for userspace applications, they'd definitely have to be recompiled but I'm sure software manufacturers won't mind taking care of that if it means access to a new market segment with zero effort (I'm pretty sure M$ is going to provide the Visual Studio for the target platform).

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By DanNeely on 4/18/2011 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
Existing drivers don't even have to be rewritten from scratch, if they were written properly in the first place.

But we all know that many drivers are not written properly.

Exhibit 1 is the driver mess when Vista was released.

Exhibit 2 is the number of devices in that time period that only had 32 bit drivers when if written properly all they'd need to do was to compile to x64 instead of x86.

The prosecution rests.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By Da W on 4/18/2011 10:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
By that time you'll have quad-core X86 @ 3-4Ghz with powerful GPU to boot.

RE: ARM on netbooks?
By nafhan on 4/18/2011 11:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
Since an ARM based ultraportable would essentially be a tablet with a keyboard, you'd have similar battery life to what you're getting now with modern tablets (more room for a bigger battery, but Windows and a bigger screen would probably eat up any additional battery life).

who cares?
By Argon18 on 4/18/2011 9:01:43 AM , Rating: 3
i'm not playing crysis on my phone. all i want is to make and receive telephone calls. and my current smart phone barely does that without dropping the call. ugh.

RE: who cares?
By XSpeedracerX on 4/18/2011 9:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
The dumbphone market is still there for you. Also, you're gonna need to wait for the galaxy s 4 or 5 to get here before we start talking about non-virualized crysis on your phone, unless it's severely cut down.

RE: who cares?
By aegisofrime on 4/18/2011 9:55:49 AM , Rating: 2

Don't presume that just because you don't want it, means that others don't. Here in Asia everyone uses a smartphone, and we actually make the most out of it.

RE: who cares?
By EricMartello on 4/19/2011 2:20:36 PM , Rating: 1
Here in Asia? That's a big place. Most countries in asia are poor 3rd world "developing" nations. They've been developing for a long, long time now. LOL How much longer until asians catch up to 2011? They're using smartphones now...heeeey. *slow clap*

RE: who cares?
By Motoman on 4/18/2011 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 4
His point isn't necessarily that he doesn't want a smartphone. His point is that the *primary* task for any phone is to make an recieve calls...and currently, that tends to be frequently harder than it should be. He's suggesting that maybe we fix the primary function of the devices before we start worrying about making them fold the laundry.

RE: who cares?
By Suntan on 4/18/2011 1:56:22 PM , Rating: 1
Speak for yourself. I probably only make 5 or 6 calls a month on my phone.

If I only used it for calls, even a dumb cell phone would be a waste of money.


RE: who cares?
By Motoman on 4/19/2011 4:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
...let me get this straight...are you claiming that the primary function of a cellPHONE isn't to make and recieve PHONE calls?

By ForeverStudent on 4/18/2011 1:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
To me it seems there are two possible purposes for such a power upgrade:
(1) "Mine's better than yours" - a standard GHz race.
(2) I think this kind of power could actually bring to fruition a future that I predict coming: Phone's as main computers. I believe that in just a few years, phone's will have the processing power to run all the needs of basic computer users. Think the Motorola Atrix 4G, but better designed and implemented. Imagine Having a 14" laptop that weighs 2 lbs or less. You plug in your phone, and it becomes a fully functional laptop. You get home and plug your phone into an adapter that basically runs your phone as your desktop. $400 or less would buy you the most power efficient, portable computer available, and you would always have ALL of your files and media with you. And if this phone came with cloud storage . . . The future is coming, like it or not.

By haukionkannel on 4/18/2011 1:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, actually phone can replace computer eventually. It is actually guite smart move. "One device to rule them all!" The problem is, as it has been said above, the increased power consumption.
The other aspect is size. It is easier to read news etc. with bigger screen like Ipad2 10" vs mobile phone 4" screen, but portability has it adwantages too.
I would live hapily with multipurpose phone that can stream movies to my tv, allow me to read news, and even make phone calls when needed...
If i would need to read more, I most propably would use my "e-book" with colour e-ink or something similar. And when I would need serious power, normal desktop computer would handle that.
I im guite sure, that i would not carry anything bigger than a phone around all the day. And with ingreased power, phone can do allmost everything that HTPC can do now.

So I think that ForeverStudent have a good poin in here.

By JakLee on 4/18/2011 7:33:40 PM , Rating: 3
This would significantly "easier" to accomplish with a foldible "monitor".
a simple plug out to a 24 in screen that you can fold in half (or quarter) and display to only that space would allow you watch a movie, play a game, read a book, surf the web (hey, something may be fine on a 4.3 in screen or need a 12 in screen, or a 24 in screen, depends on the content).

I think an actual folding, flexible external touch screen monitor will completely change teh game.

By Alexstarfire on 4/19/2011 2:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's even a question that that would change the game. However, I don't see a reasonable foldable/flexible monitor coming out anytime in the near future.

By Da W on 4/19/2011 10:03:37 AM , Rating: 2
It depends on what you do with a computer, since as with phones, more power brings new possibilities. If we continue to only browse the web and do word processing, then yes a phone will be enough eventually. BUT, at any given time, a full blown PC will always be more powerful than a phone, being able to do more/other/new things. So it all depends IF there will be new things we want a computer to do. I doubt full home automation will be practical on a phone.

Finish the quote
By theapparition on 4/18/2011 9:59:58 AM , Rating: 4
The real quote from Samsung goes something like this:

We are planning to release a 2Ghz dual-core CPU-equipped smartphone by next year. This product will have the data processing capacities of a regular PC, but will still run Android 2.1 at launch because we are completely incompetent at software upgrades.

RE: Finish the quote
By vectorm12 on 4/18/2011 10:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'll chime in on that one.

Switching from my Galaxy S to the Nexus S was a gift by a higher power.

Google seriously need to put an end to carrier/manufacturer only sw-updates

So what:
By Manch on 4/18/2011 9:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
After the BS I've gone thru with my EPIC, and their lack of suppt', I'm not buying a Sammy again. I'll go HTC, or somebody else.

RE: So what:
By Gyres01 on 4/18/2011 11:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
+ 1 for HTC

So, right
By TexMurphy on 4/18/2011 2:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
Close to the power of a desktop PC, right? Are we really back to the GHz myth? How about we compare a Pentium 4 3.73Ghz versus something more modern?

RE: So, right
By somata on 4/18/2011 6:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! It's amazing what a lightweight OS and pervasive hardware acceleration can do to make it look like ARM-based smartphones/tablets are fast-approaching PC levels of performance; but single out the CPU and it's apparent they've got a long way to go. If you compare a 1GHz dual-core A9 with various other systems in GeekBench (the best native, neutral, cross-platform benchmark we have imho), you'll see that its performance is nowhere near modern mainstream PCs.

If you focus just on single-threaded integer performance, it's roughly the same speed as a 750MHz Pentium 3. Even a quaint 1.42GHz PowerPC G4 from 2002 is twice as fast by this crucial metric! So a dual-core 2GHz A9 would presumably have roughly the same performance as a dual-core 1.42GHz G4. Not too shabby for a phone, but definitely not what I'd call "PC-level performance" these days.

Then again they could be talking about A15s (which I'll reserve judgement on until I see them in action), but even then I'm not expecting anything revolutionary.

GHz for GHz's sake
By interstitial on 4/18/2011 12:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why? That's all I'm wondering. I just can't see what you could run on a phone that would need this sort of power. Unless it's like an Xperia play or something it's not going to have precision controls necessary for playing games that would need this sort of power. Without a mouse serious photo or video editing on it would be a nightmare.

So honestly, I can't see a reason for this. A 1GHz duel core should be able to run anything you'd want to on a phone. Like others have said, why not reduce power usage instead?

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007
Related Articles

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki