1. Download our Official Android App: Forums for Android!

General Async cores and benchmarks

Discussion in 'Android Devices' started by BlueGoldAce, May 26, 2011.

  1. BlueGoldAce

    BlueGoldAce Member
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    18
    Posts:
    53
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011

    Jan 21, 2011
    53
    12
    18
    I know this has been discussed off and on in the Sensation vs Galaxy II thread, but I would like to have a more focused discussion on this.

    It seems to me that the the async cores could be a plausible reason for the lowe (for example) quadrant scores. What do you guys think? I mean, how can mt4g and desire HD, overclocked, score as high as the stock sensation? I am currently a graduation student at the University of Notre Dame. I am pursing a degree in nueroscience...so this is not my field of study. But I am very good friends with a few of the computer science and tech Phds up here, and I asked them about this. One of them is a avid phone tech geek, and he said that this is exactly the reason for the low benchmarks...even with smartbench. The reasons he rambled off are over my head (again I'm nueroscience), and he talked to me about for at least an hour. His conclusion was that at the very least the modified A8 snapdragons are as powerful, or very close to the A9's on the Galaxy S II. He said the async actually should allow the phone to perform better, sync individual cores can be assigned individual task, thus allowing increased multitasking and prevent a bottleneck at the processor level.

    He also mentioned some of samsung's implantations in the phone, such as the ridiculously high read speed on the sd card (artifically made, faster than most solid state drives...somewhere in the 400 mb/s) seem to have been intended for the purpose of benchmarks, due to such programing would not benefit real world use. Smart move by samsung, though, as it makes for pretty numbers and fanfare.

    I mentioned the browser, for example, difference and he said this is the result of software alone. As such, HTC will remedy this. The graphic excel is great on the Galaxy S II, but if HTC doesn't match this...Ice Cream will. Still...in my opinion...great thinking on samsung's part in this aspect (even if it will be short lived)

    For the purpose of this argument, lets put aside the broswer examples (which does not speak for the actually processing power of the phone, and will not be a long lasting advantage). Also, there is debate around the camera, but again we are talking processing power here. Beyond these two examples, I have not seen a comparision in which the galaxy S II was faster in opening apps, or flying between various parts of the UI.

    Leave out the sam dudes (sorry, don't remember full name) comparisions. Beyond the fact that they focus on the browser, etc, there also seems to be some controversy around that.

    Anyway, I wanted to see what you guys think.

    Take care, and enjoy the discussion.
     

    Advertisement

  2. statsprof

    statsprof Lurker
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    5
    Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    May 21, 2011

    May 21, 2011
    3
    0
    5
    Yes Samsung is not that fast.

    Yes Sensation is not that slow.

    The high read speed has already been proven somewhere. It really stands out.

    Biggest factor, resolution.
     

Share This Page

Loading...