Originally Posted by Rubers
No, he's using the 1.5GHz S4 Krait (US Galaxy S3) and I'm, using the 1.4Ghz Exynos (Intl Galaxy S3).
Yep, gotcha thanks.
And right, but your opinion is based on erroneous assumptions and therefore completely wrong and as erroneous as your assumptions.
1. You say that the Quad Core is: "not useful for multitasking if it isn't doing more work than a dual-core can handle."
This is wrong. The Android OS from 4.0 the OS is totally geared towards multiple core systems, up to 4 cores currently. The workload of the system will be spread across all four cores as and when needed. For example you can have one core loading a website, another is downloading an app from the market and the other two are managing the OS and Launcher (and thus all the widgets you may have open) which gives a fluid experience.
2. You make this assertion that unless all four cores are doing more work than a dual core can handle, there is no advantage. Except for battery life, right? As we know, if a CPU is using 50% of it's capacity, or even 100% of it's capacity, it draws more power than when it's using 25% of it's capacity. So a dual core working at 50% uses more power than a quad working at 25%. Your assertion that a quad needs to be working hard to be of any use is again refuted in that it will draw less power than a dual core running the same load.
3. "for the majority of tasks it's still inferior to a dual-core with higher per core performance as far as I'm concerned." Try looking at it subjectively. Now, of course any CPU that has a better clock for clock performance is going to be better in that kind of situation. But the problem is that we're not running these dual's and quads in single core mode, clock for clock. We're running them on multi-core optimised operating systems made to take advantage of multiple cores at various different speeds.
The advantages of having a quad over a dual core are glaringly obvious to those that want to see them. It's not just about singled threaded performance on an app-by-app basis but it's the whole OS that you must account for.
1. If it isn't doing more work than the dual-core can handle then there's no reason why it should be more fluid. Have you even seen your device use more than 50% on each core simultaneously? That's not a rhetorical statement, I want to know.
2. Proof please. If this was true then can you explain why the Tegra 3 includes a fifth power saving core? If what you say is true would it not bring better power savings to run with much less utilisation on a more powerful core than to use a weaker core with much more utilisation?
3. The OS may be optimised for multiple cores but most apps aren't. At best they can utilise one or two. And then you've got some
intensive apps and games which can be multi-threaded to take advantage of a quad-core.
So if a quad-core makes everything fluid does that mean dual-core droids aren't fluid when they multi-task? Are they choppy and laggy? I don't actually know but I strongly suspect the answer is no so I'm making a point.
Every single thing you do on a smartphone or tablet involves apps, and that's why they're the most important thing. Even if I believed what you said was true (which I don't) -- that quad-cores keep everything fluid even when the work they're doing isn't even utilising two cores and thus be handled by a dual-core, I'd much rather multi-task less and have better performance in apps.
Originally Posted by bencher
If the iphone 5 had a quad core cpu steelbom would be saying something completely different right now.
Funnily enough before the iPhone 5 was released I said it was very likely coming out with a quad-core A9, and I was still arguing with Rubers that a dual-core with a better architecture is the better choice. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw Apple did not go that route. So yeah, you're wrong.Edited by steelbom - 9/14/12 at 6:29pm