backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by actionjksn.. on Jan 11 at 12:19 PM

Samsung goes for the throat with its 8-Core Exynos 5 Octa

Just when we were finally getting used to the notion of quad-core processors in our smartphones and tablets, Samsung is dropping a bombshell on the mobile community: an eight-core processor. In this particular case, however, there are two banks of quad-core processing units. The first bank consists of four Cortex-A15 processing units for high performance, while the second bank consists of four Cortex-A7 processing units for lighter workloads in order to save battery life.
 
The idea of using lower-power cores for mundane tasks sounds similar to what NVIDIA does with its Tegra 3/Tegra 4 processors. The Tegras feature quad-cores for high-performance applications and a fifth "companion" core to handle loads that aren't as demanding.
 
According to Samsung, going with this "high-low" 8-core arrangement allows it to offer 70 percent greater power efficiency than the previous generation quad-core Exynos.
 
“The new Exynos 5 Octa introduces a whole new concept in processing architecture…designed for high-end smartphones and tablets,” said Samsung's Dr. Stephen Woo. “When you want multiple applications to perform at their best, you want the best application processor currently available—the Exynos 5 Octa.”

Could we possibly see this new chip in a Samsung Galaxy S IV???

Source: Samsung



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By TakinYourPoints on 1/10/2013 1:52:49 AM , Rating: -1
An "outdated" dually that still leads everything in CPU and GPU performance. The GS3 gets smoked by the iPhone 5 in every way. "Superior" specs are highly questionable.

Bulletpoint specs are just irrelevant marketing for neckbeards if they don't deliver practical performance benefits. It is the same problem with the AMD Bulldozer CPUs. Lots of cores sounds cool but if applications don't use them and practical performance is less than a comparably priced Intel product then who cares?

And retro is right, beefing up the GPU would be far more useful than adding more cores. Current mobile applications don't really take advantage of quads, so whats the point when there are other obvious things that can be improved upon right now?


RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By synapse46 on 1/10/2013 8:53:45 AM , Rating: 2
But the iphone still has to run ios, gahhh.


RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By bug77 on 1/10/2013 10:01:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The GS3 gets smoked by the iPhone 5 in every way.


It doesn't. The SGS3 actually leads in Geekmark. The iphone seems to have a better GPU, but on CPU benchmarks they're trading blows. Which I don't think means the SGS3 is less capable, but rather that nothing uses 4 cores on a smartphone yet. Of course, that still means Apple did the right thing by sticking with a dual core this round; hell, I have a dual core that's almost two years old and it doesn't look slow to me.


RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By retrospooty on 1/10/2013 10:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
That and what Gul said was "the galaxy S3 has far superior specs to the iphone" ... This also means sd card, removable battery, larger screen, higher res, etc.


RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By bug77 on 1/10/2013 11:19:35 AM , Rating: 3
Eh, who needs a larger screen? It's not like you're looking at it every time you use your phone. ;-)


By retrospooty on 1/10/2013 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the screen? The part that you look at, touch and do literally every interaction with? LOL... Nooooo. ;)


RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By TakinYourPoints on 1/10/2013 6:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Some of us aren't fatties with big pockets, others don't like wearing belt holsters, and others don't carry around purses. ;)


RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By bug77 on 1/11/2013 5:06:55 AM , Rating: 2
You will, as soon as Apple releases something bigger.


By TakinYourPoints on 1/10/2013 6:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
It also almost twice as high in the practical Browsermark and SunSpider benchmarks, as well as practical GPU benchmarks.

Fact of the matter is that adding more cores means very little if the hardware and software isn't going to really take advantage of them. It is just a bulletpoint "feature" with no practical use, except maybe to do well in synthetic benchmarks with little reflection in real-world performance.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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