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 JPForums on 1/10/2013 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hell no, not me. IOS just isnt up to par with the other OS's on the market.
Yeah, I feel like they've lost their edge too.
quote:
I also wont be getting a phone with less than a 4.7 inch screen ...
I draw the hard line a 4", but have to admit something like 4.7" is more appealing.
quote:
or any screen based device with less than 1920x1080 ever again.
Resolution has pretty much stagnated across all markets. For TVs and monitors, 4K screens are so late that 8K screens are apparently only a year or two behind. So I'm with you, no devices below 1920x1080.
quote:
I'd really rather see 16x10 come back, ...
Yeah, I still don't understand the move to 16x9 (1.78:1). Originally it was to match the native aspect ration of HD movies, but anymore movies are shot at at 1.85:1, 2.35:1, or 2.39:1. At some point you just have to ask which aspect ratio matches best with human visual aspect ratio. If I recall correctly, matching the human visual aspect ratio was the primary reason for choosing the 16x10 aspect ratio in the first place. Besides that, it gets increasingly hard to get things done when you further squash the smaller dimension.
quote:
... but that doesnt seem to be happening.
Frustrating isn't it. However, last I checked, one fruity company still seems to favor 16x10. I just wish that the rest of the industry would come back around to its merits as there are trade offs I'm not willing to make to buy particular fruity products.
quote:
I was just saying I would rather see them concentrate on GPU after 4 A15 cores, that is crazy fast already...
I'd rather they pull a 2xA15/2xA7 + crazy fast GPU with great power saving features. It doesn't look like most applications actually use more than two cores in the first place. Many of the applications that do only have one heavy thread. Using two A7 cores instead of one, in contrast to nVidia, may allow them to keep power usage lower in certain scenarios, for instance, when the operating system or background process needs to attend a light task while the user is also running a light application in the foreground.

A 4xA15/4xA7 arrangement may make some sense in tablets, though. I just don't want to see a gimped GPU in either a phone or a tablet due to stuffing in extra cores. That said, I don't expect this to be the case. Using the A7 cores in the first place is a play at power efficiency. In the simplest scenario Samsung could implement the chip to use either A15 or A7. To make it a bit more complicated, they could pair each A15 to a corresponding A7 and let them trade off independently. I suppose they could just expose access to all the cores and let the software decide, but I can't think of a scenario where it makes sense for the scheduler to use more than four cores at a time in a phone (or tablet). Thus, the A7 cores, if used as intended, will effectively lower the battery usage and thermal output at low CPU load. It is conceivable, though not very likely, that a game could make use of the lower power A7 cores leaving more thermal headroom for GPU usage. The only barriers are size and (correspondingly) cost.


By retrospooty on 1/10/2013 1:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
hmm... I just ran across this...

http://www.androidauthority.com/lg-displays-ces-14...

MAybe there is hope!


RE: Complicated and Costly Design?
By bug77 on 1/10/2013 1:50:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yeah, I still don't understand the move to 16x9 (1.78:1).


That's easy. The more "rectangular" a screen is at any given diagonal size, the less surface it has. The less surface it has, the more a manufacturer can get from any prefabricated sheet. The more a manufacturer can get from a sheet, the lower the cost.

But I still miss my 4:3 monitor.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














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