Thread: General Do not doubt
View Single Post
Old August 16th, 2011, 04:35 PM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
BlueBiker's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New England
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,533
Device(s): Note 3; formerly Rezound, Droid Charge, and OG Droid
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 1,699
Thanked 1,438 Times in 820 Posts

Originally Posted by drdoom View Post
Except adding a dual or quad core processor has a significant impact on performance (and battery) as long as you have properly coded applications.
Not every app can take advantage of multiple cores, no matter how well it's coded. People are seeing minimal advantage to a 2nd core right now, and having quad-core will produce even more diminishing benefits. For the most part having more cores means enabling more apps or system threads to run at the same time, rather than speeding up any one app.

Originally Posted by drdoom View Post
Dual channel RAM, on the other hand, will only net you roughly 10-20% increase in performance for RAM limited cases (using data from dual channel RAM on desktops).
That sounds plausible. I think AMD's 6-core desktop chips are currently plenty well fed from only 2-channel RAM.

Originally Posted by drdoom View Post
In some cases, dual channel can be slower than single channel because it has higher timings.
I don't think dual-channel RAM is ever slower than comparable single-channel. You're probably remembering how the first desktop DDR2 had horrible latencies and could perform worse than DDR.

Originally Posted by drdoom View Post
It remains to be seen if dual channel will even have an impact on a smartphone; loading massive photos into RAM for editing on a desktop takes a lot more power than loading part of a 10MB application into RAM on a smartphone.
RAM speed should have minimal effect on the speed of loading data from flash or disk, which are the much slower limiting factors.

Originally Posted by drdoom View Post
At the end of the day, we are left throwing around pointless facts.
BlueBiker is offline  
Reply With Quote