backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by vision33r.. on Mar 9 at 4:34 PM

K1 is impressive in AnTuTu benchmark

During CES 2014, NVIDIA was showing off a new processor that fits into the Tegra line: the Tegra K1. This week, some benchmarks that are claimed to be from that chip have hit the web.
 
We already know most of the hardware specs on the K1, including the fact that the chip has 192 CUDA cores. The chip is a 32-bit quad-core unit with another version tipped that will have dual Denver 64-bit cores operating at up to 2.5GHz.
 
The K1 has a maximum clock speed of 2.3GHz (in quad-core configuration) and supports DDR3L and LPDDR3 memory up to 8GB. The chip will also support displays with resolution up to 3840 x 2160.
 
Benchmarks for the chip show what it was able to score on the AnTuTu running Android 4.4.2. The unknown device that was used to run the benchmark has a screen with 1920x1080 resolution and 2GB of RAM.
 
You can see the full results of the benchmarks in the images below:
 



[Images courtesy MyDrivers]
 
The Tegra K1 should make for some impressive smartphones and tablets when they start coming to market; but NVIDIA first has to get on the ball with design wins.

Sources: MyDrivers, Neowin



Comments     Threshold


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

Excellent
By bug77 on 3/6/2014 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
This shows just how wasteful quad-core+ chips are today for mobile devices.
Higher clocked dual chips seem to have no issue keeping pace. Couple that with the fact that not even demanding mobile games use more than two cores (arstechnica did an article on this) and a dual-core K1 starts looking like a real smart choice.

*The above is assuming the dual-core version will not use more power than the quad core one. This is usually the case, but until we see actual results we don't know for sure.




RE: Excellent
By Argon18 on 3/6/2014 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's complete nonsense. Phones need one full core for the real-time tasks of monitoring the cellular network. It's why you see substantial game performance boost from going to dual-core from single core on a phone, even for games that are single-threaded.

Not to mention that you've likely got other apps running in the background checking your email, getting facebook updates, etc.

Just because a *game* doesn't utilize four cores, doesn't mean the *phone* can't fully utilize them. (Remember that for mobile phone game benchmarks, they turn the radio off and they halt all other background apps).


RE: Excellent
By bug77 on 3/6/2014 3:12:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Phones need one full core for the real-time tasks of monitoring the cellular network.


If that was true, I wouldn't be able to do anything, but basic phone calls on my single core phone. Strangely enough, I can so a hell of a lot more than that..

I hope you do know a core can run any number of threads without a hitch as long the threads combined don't need more than 100% of a core's power. If you have two threads using 10% computing power each, they will happily run on a single core.


RE: Excellent
By name99 on 3/6/14, Rating: 0
RE: Excellent
By retrospooty on 3/6/2014 12:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
But it's totally free. When not in use cores power off entirely. When needed, the power is there.


RE: Excellent
By bug77 on 3/6/2014 3:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully, if the software works flawlessly.
However, the trade-off is that a dual-core can be clocked higher, so when your CPU intensive stuff only uses a core or two, a quad can still hold it back. Mail, FB or taking photos will not do that, so this is mostly about games, I think.


RE: Excellent
By CaedenV on 3/6/2014 2:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
While I generally agree with you, there are some odd exceptions when it comes to mobile devices. On a PC almost every individual part has their own processor, while on a phone a lot of peripheral processing is done on the CPU. Phones also tend to be doing more and more video and photo work which is much easier (and efficient on the battery) to run multi-core than games and software. Also, background programs and processes can take quite a few CPU cycles, and a duel core game will run much faster if it can offload those processes to another core.

So while a quad core may well be overkill, there are plenty of reasons to have more than 2 cores. It would be really interesting to see a design with one small core to manage the phone peripherals and background processes, and then 2 normal sized cores to take care of active tasks... but I don't think that will be happening any time soon.

Between K1, 805, and the new Atom processors coming down the pipe, it looks like we will see some nice improvements in next gen phones just in time for my contract to expire! Things are lining up beautifully!


RE: Excellent
By bug77 on 3/6/2014 3:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Between K1, 805, and the new Atom processors coming down the pipe, it looks like we will see some nice improvements in next gen phones just in time for my contract to expire! Things are lining up beautifully!


The only improvement I'm looking forward to is battery life (hence my bias towards dual-core solutions). Unfortunately, with the advent of the smartphone, it has taken a plunge to about one day and it remained around that mark ever since. O know processing power has improved dramatically, buy I'd like to see a decent phone that will last me for a week or so. Not everybody needs the absolute fastest, just like not everybody buys exclusively intel's extreme edition CPUs.


RE: Excellent
By purerice on 3/6/2014 4:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
If I may also generally agree with you, if only to add a caveat to your "overkill" statement, each core can in theory run at an independent speed.

Also, power requirements scale higher than speed increase.

So a single core CPU running 1 major task and several smaller tasks at 2.2ghz will use significantly more power than a quad core CPU with one core at 1ghz and 3 cores each at 400mhz.

When it comes to battery life, spreading as many tasks around as many low speed "processors" as you can is the way to go.

8 or 16 cores simple cores would be even better for 90% of most usage, as far as battery life is concerned.


RE: Excellent
By bug77 on 3/7/2014 9:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
Frequency vs power is much, much more complicated. I'll try to explain it in brief when I'll get some time on my hands.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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