backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by Paj.. on Apr 3 at 9:48 AM

But some of the countries are relatively small markets

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) was quick to seize on good news from market analytics firm International Data Corp.'s (IDC) survey of international phone sales.  While the report unsurprisingly showed Android to be the king of virtually every region, the report showed that in some nations Windows Phones are outselling Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone.

But before Apple fans explode with indignation, yes there is a catch.  Windows Phone outsold the iPhone in a smattering of emerging markets, where the high price of Apple's trendy phone is probably a barrier to sales success.  In total Windows Phone led the iPhone in Argentina, India, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, and "rest of central and eastern Europe".

The success in India is a pretty big deal because that's going to be a huge smartphone market.  But other regions like Ukraine, South Africa, and "rest of... Europe" (smaller countries) are all markets of 100,000 or less smartphone units annually.

Lumia 520
The Lumia 520 [Image Source: Nokia]

The arrival of low-end Windows Phone devices -- namely Nokia Oyj.'s (HEX:NOK1VLumia 520/620 -- has certainly boosted Windows Phone.  Much like Android, Microsoft and its third-party hardware partners appear to be starting their assault on the iPhone at the low-end.  While today's flagship Android phones put the iPhone's hardware to shame, the earliest Androids were largely budget devices.

It remains to be seen, though, whether Windows Phone can duplicate Android's successful creep into the high-end of the market.  Microsoft is betting big on the Windows Phone Blue refresh, which will likely be the next major platform refresh.  That update is expected to land sometime in the October/November window.  The good news for Windows Phone 8 device owners is that Microsoft reportedly will be supporting current generation devices in the upgrade this time around.

Source: Microsoft [TechNet]



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Good progress...
By StevoLincolnite on 3/28/2013 4:56:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most PC games will barely use two cores, most of it leans on the GPU. Crysis 3, a very new game, is the first that really benefits from quad core. Others like Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider don't.


I can list some off the top of my head that use more than 2 cores.
* Dragon Age: Origins.
* Battlefield 3. (Scales over 6 cores/threads in multiplayer.)
* Civilization V (Scales over 6 cores/threads.)
* Grand Theft Auto 4.
* Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
* Crysis 2
* Medal of Honor: Warfighter.
* Deus Ex.
* Most Valve Source games. I.E. Portal 1&2, Half Life, Left for Dead etc' etc'.
* Supreme Commander 1&2
* Arma 2.
* Anno 1404/2070.
* Company of Heroes.
* Witcher 2.

Most can play fine on a speedy dual core, but they still see performance improvements when you move to a quaddy.

With that said, I still see allot of people kicking around an old Core 2 Quad, albeit heavily overclocked as they seem to be able to handle the more heavily threaded games just fine, which is in stark contrast to the old Core 2 Duo's which will scream "I'm a teapot!" in some titles.


RE: Good progress...
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2013 8:17:32 AM , Rating: 3
I went with a 2500k instead of an i7 because of the cost difference and practically no benefit in games. Would help with encoding times, but for me that's about it.


RE: Good progress...
By bug77 on 3/28/2013 8:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Hear, hear!
I'm also on a 2500k, which, although unlocked, I don't feel the need to overclock. I don't do video encoding or 3D modelling either. I do use a VM quite often. It gets its own 2 cores and both host and guest are happy.


RE: Good progress...
By jjlj on 3/28/2013 10:25:44 AM , Rating: 3
I know this is way off topic, lol. But yep, the 2500K is a nice processor. Paired with an SSD and plenty of ram. I am not upgrading for many many many years to come.


RE: Good progress...
By EricMartello on 3/28/2013 4:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
I replaced my 980X with a 3770S because the performance was very similar yet the 3770S runs cool with a 65W TDP (980X was double this at 130W TDP). I do not miss those 4 extra cores that the 980X had.


RE: Good progress...
By TakinYourPoints on 3/28/2013 3:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, the difference between having hyperthreading and none was negligible. We are just now starting to see benefits in bleeding edge games like Crysis 3.


RE: Good progress...
By StormyKnight on 3/29/2013 1:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
Same here. Built the rig almost a year ago. I get a stable overclock of 4.5GHz in a well ventilated Cooler Master HAF932 case. Great little cpu. My first Intel build. I also thought that the i7 was overkill for what I needed.


RE: Good progress...
By Paj on 4/3/2013 9:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
Same, although I got the 3570K Ivy Bridge version (which is practically identical to the Sandy Bridge you have anyway).


RE: Good progress...
By EricMartello on 3/28/2013 4:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can list some off the top of my head that use more than 2 cores.


Multi-core or multi-CPU performance scales better depending on how granular the load is. For example a database will see fairly linear scaling as more CPUs are added since databases are responding to queries and can spread that load over any number of cores. More importantly, the result of the calculation can be returned directly without having to recombine it with the main thread and perform additional calculations.

A game is processor-intensive with a load that cannot efficiently be spread around since a lot of the calculations are intertwined with each other and cannot be split apart, processed independently and returned as they are completed. Even if the load is split, it still needs to be recombined and it still needs to wait on the main thread. This adds processing overhead, increases memory usage and adds a thick layer of complexity to the code among other things.

So even if the game supports multiple cores the performance is going to reflect high diminishing returns with that type of load. With games you'll see better results with a single fast core than you will with multiple slower cores.


RE: Good progress...
By TakinYourPoints on 3/28/2013 7:06:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A game is processor-intensive with a load that cannot efficiently be spread around since a lot of the calculations are intertwined with each other and cannot be split apart, processed independently and returned as they are completed. Even if the load is split, it still needs to be recombined and it still needs to wait on the main thread. This adds processing overhead, increases memory usage and adds a thick layer of complexity to the code among other things.


Yup, all this. There are still serious diminishing returns with more than two cores. The whole reason quad cores finally made sense with the i-series CPUs is because they could disable unused cores while increasing the clock frequency on one or two. High performance single-thread applications like games could finally benefit, whereas before with a Core Quad you'd be stuck with a slower clocked CPU and extra cores doing little or nothing.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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