Dual Core, Quadcore, etc: Android market in 2 years

[xxkid123]

I haven't seen this discussed before, and I think it's somewhat important.

My phone upgrade is coming up, and I've been already looking at phones. My contract lasts for 2 years, that's a long time to me. The android market is quickly advancing, and while most dual and quad core phones aren't needed now, what about in 2 or 3 years time?

I've read Single vs Dual vs Quad discussions before, but they're all about apps now- apps that are designed for at most 2 cores, rarely 4. What about in another year or two? I don't want my new phone to change from cutting edge technology to a brick in less than the term of my plan

So 2 years time, quad core go or no go? Dual core still usable or bricks?

 

[Demache]

In many ways single cores are still perfectly usable if they ARMv7 based. In the past 2-3 years there was a huge jump in smartphone processors, which created a huge gap between them and "first gen" Android devices (that used much older ARMv6 processors) seem incredibly outdated and slow and in some cases almost unusable.

I'm sure we will see a point where the current dual cores become very outdated, however, I doubt they will get to that point within 2 years. They just won't be cutting edge (and already aren't) so they won't run the most demanding apps as well. For day to day use though, I'm sure they will be able to keep up.

 

[Rachel A]

Not so sure if the number of cores will matter more than RAM and battery.

 

[nickdalzell]

i am unsure also it seems that any Android version higher than Eclair also takes advantage of even the lowest spec devices (just got me a ZTE Merit with a paltry 600MHz that seems lag-free that runs 2.3 GB while one of my tablets has a 800MHz and 1.x Eclair that sucks and lags like crazy) and it only gets better after 3.0. i haven't noticed a significant advantage of dual over single cores, but the most heavy app i have ever played so far is Pinball Arcade--which exhibits a little lag on the dual-core CPU in the Kindle Fire.

 

[chanchan05]

Still using a single core device in my phone, a Galaxy S variant, and apart from the better battery life of newer phones and a camera flash, I actually don't see any reason to upgrade yet. Ok so it would be cool to upgrade and tout the latest and greatest units (my carrier offers the SIII, the One X is offered by the competitor network), but from a pure functionality standpoint, there is no reason, YET. Heck you can still see the manufacturers selling lower end devices with 600-800Mhz single core chips (Desire C, Galaxy Y) which are still perfectly useable under todays standards.

Even on PCs, single core Intel Atom units are still very much usable in netbooks.

It all depends on what you are asking from your phone, but since I don't game on my phone (I'd rather on my tablet and its really just very casual gaming anyway), it fulfills all my needs as basically a social communicator: calls, SMS, chat, social networking, taking and sharing media, with a little organizing (to-do, calendar) on the side. And its just a single core 1Ghz device.

 

[nickdalzell]

i am not real picky. i am not up to jazz on the latest and most heavy Android out there. i usually am a low-end user on phones and disposable tablets (disposable being that they are the ones so cheap i use them only at work where they get broken easily and not my more expensive stuff) and i am not so nitpicky over screen size. i hear all this and all that about the newest HTC or Galaxy (whichever initial they're using today) but my ZTE Merit and various others do me just fine. but then you're talking to a man who was happy with his Nokia 5110 when the first Motorola RAZR was the latest and greatest thing.

 

[Jersey Tom]

As I've said elsewhere, IMO the smartphone is a lightweight mobile device. 2 cores is probably overkill as it is. Anything I'd be doing that's CPU-intensive I'd be doing on a tablet, ultrabook, or laptop.

So to me, quad core phone stuff is not really at all attractive or on my radar.

 

[chanchan05]

As I've said elsewhere, IMO the smartphone is a lightweight mobile device. 2 cores is probably overkill as it is. Anything I'd be doing that's CPU-intensive I'd be doing on a tablet, ultrabook, or laptop.

So to me, quad core phone stuff is not really at all attractive or on my radar.

Well for starters quad core generally means better battery life, especially with Tegra3's fifth battery saver core. The SGS3 actually rivals the battery life for the Razr Maxx (has dual core), despite having a bigger screen and a smaller battery.