Sneak Peak of Tegra 4 (Codename Wayne)

[WelshBloke]

Just tested out splashtop and gaming. Seems to work fine (apart from the lack of mouse and keyboard).

What's the advantage of shield if you can already stream games to a mobile device or TV?

 

[MrX8503]

There is a large gap for me between marginal and significant, and I want to see what you think is no longer marginal. If it is 1% I think everyone can agree that is marginal, but what about 10%? 20%? Where does it stop being marginal and hence, old news to you.

Well, Apple increased their performance by nearly ~100% with every new chip. That's considered impressive and next gen.

Tegra 4 would have to be ~100% better than A6X to be impressive/next gen. 50% would be good but not next gen.

The Maxx has sub optimal battery life. If they used a smaller display with a larger battery it would have lasted longer. That makes it sub optimal. Whole bunch of trade offs when building a device, my point was that Apple doesn't rate battery life at the top of their list, obviously.

Now the Maxx has sub optimal battery life? Battery life not Apple's priority? Lol ok.

No, your point was that the iPhones battery life's strength comes from its small screen. While having a small screen helps, it also has a smaller battery compared to larger phones, making your point moot. With battery life normalized, screen size doesn't matter.

 

[Mopetar]

Well, Apple increased their performance by nearly ~100% with every new chip. That's considered impressive and next gen.

Tegra 4 would have to be ~100% better than A6X to be impressive/next gen. 50% would be good but not next gen.

To be fair, Apple has also been increasing die size to achieve this effect, so it's not sustainable in the long term.

With battery life normalized, screen size doesn't matter.

Unless it does and larger screens are more or less efficient because efficiency doesn't directly scale with the size of the screen. I have no way of knowing if this is the case, but it's certainly a possibility.

 

[BenSkywalker]

..

 

[dguy6789]

I stated that someone could take a Tegra 4 and pair it with a small screen and bury the iPhone 5 for battery life if they wanted to. That is an absolute 100% accurate claim. I am absolutely correct. You are, well, you

There must be an awful lot of proof out there for you to use the word absolute so many times. Let's see the links, if you can't produce then everything you said is null.

 

[MrX8503]

A4? Not remotely close to being in the league of 100% faster-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3633/apples-a4-soc-faster-than-snapdragon

A5? Not remotely close to being in the league of 100% faster-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4971/apple-iphone-4s-review-att-verizon/4

A5X? No remotely close to being in the league of being 30% faster-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5688/apple-ipad-2012-review/15

A6? We have a winner, first non old news SoC from Apple in years according to you-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review/10

A6X? Ouch, uhm-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6472/ipad-4-late-2012-review/3

If that is honestly the standard you use, 100%, then it is a perfectly valid standard. That means Apple has released one SoC that wasn't old news in the last three years.



I stated that someone could take a Tegra 4 and pair it with a small screen and bury the iPhone 5 for battery life if they wanted to. That is an absolute 100% accurate claim. I am absolutely correct. You are, well, you



He's on record now, all of Apple's SoCs for the last three years besides the A6 are old news. At least he has the courage and honesty to take a stance and stand by it. Apple releases old news SoCs most of the time.

A5 -> A5X -> A6X

Has been nearly double GPU.

Unless it does and larger screens are more or less efficient because efficiency doesn't directly scale with the size of the screen. I have no way of knowing if this is the case, but it's certainly a possibility.

There's no definitive way to know. What I'm saying is that large screen phones have larger batteries and small screen phones have small batteries.

 

[Mopetar]

There's no definitive way to know. What I'm saying is that large screen phones have larger batteries and small screen phones have small batteries.

That doesn't matter if efficiency decreases with a larger screen. As such the increase in battery size wouldn't be able to keep up with the increased power draw from the screen. On the other hand, if efficiency increases, you can get away with using a small battery in larger devices to save on weight/thickness.

Perhaps the easiest way would be to look at normalized battery life tests for 3G/4G web browsing for multiple Android phones with the same SoC, but different screen sizes. That would control for the CPU/GPU as well as the cellular radio on any of the newer phones that use a Qualcomm chip, which most of them do. There will probably be some small variations in things such as firmware and Android customizations as well as other minor differences in hardware such as the RAM, but it will probably give the best indication as to how battery life correlates to screen size.

I'll see what I can gather from AT's benchmarks.

Edit: There isn't enough data for enough phones to reach any solid conclusion. Also, the carrier plays a fairly large role that I hadn't initially accounted for either, adding even more confounding variables into the mix. Based on the limited data that I have, there doesn't appear to be a large difference in terms of normalized battery life based on screen size. However, the range of devices was quite small (4.3 - 4.8) so it's not as good as say at 3.5" - 5" comparison.

 

[BenSkywalker]

..

 

[MrX8503]

Before I dig into that, I want to be clear- you are saying the only thing that matters on a SoC is the GPU, and furthermore it needs to be a 100% improvement or it is old news, is that correct?

I've already said that the CPU in the T3 was impressive and that the GPU isn't. As for percentages, its not that complicated to understand.

That doesn't matter if efficiency decreases with a larger screen. As such the increase in battery size wouldn't be able to keep up with the increased power draw from the screen. On the other hand, if efficiency increases, you can get away with using a small battery in larger devices to save on weight/thickness.

Perhaps the easiest way would be to look at normalized battery life tests for 3G/4G web browsing for multiple Android phones with the same SoC, but different screen sizes. That would control for the CPU/GPU as well as the cellular radio on any of the newer phones that use a Qualcomm chip, which most of them do. There will probably be some small variations in things such as firmware and Android customizations as well as other minor differences in hardware such as the RAM, but it will probably give the best indication as to how battery life correlates to screen size.

I'll see what I can gather from AT's benchmarks.

Edit: There isn't enough data for enough phones to reach any solid conclusion. Also, the carrier plays a fairly large role that I hadn't initially accounted for either, adding even more confounding variables into the mix. Based on the limited data that I have, there doesn't appear to be a large difference in terms of normalized battery life based on screen size. However, the range of devices was quite small (4.3 - 4.8) so it's not as good as say at 3.5" - 5" comparison.

The point is that a smartphone smaller by volume has a smaller battery, which negates the battery life savings from having a smaller screen to an extent.

 

[BenSkywalker]

..

 

[MrX8503]

You stated the T3 was old news. I keep asking, what will it take for you not to consider it old news, I thought you manned up and took a stand, clearly I was *very* wrong and you didn't- I'm trying to get your standard. It isn't very clear, you spell it out with an exact percentage, then your next post change your mind and move the goalposts in an entirely new direction.

I just want you to tell us what it takes for a SoC to not be considered old news? The last standard you gave would have only the A6 as not old news, the new standard you are saying means that the A6 was in fact old news- which one is it?

I'm just asking what your standard is- that shouldn't be the least bit complicated for anything based on logic.

You can read the past posts if you'd like. I'm sorry that its too complicated for ya.

 

[BenSkywalker]

..

 

[thunng8]

A4? Not remotely close to being in the league of 100% faster-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3633/apples-a4-soc-faster-than-snapdragon

A5? Not remotely close to being in the league of 100% faster-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4971/apple-iphone-4s-review-att-verizon/4

Why are you bringing up the iphone4S review. The A5 was introduced with the ipad2 and that was well over 2X faster than Tegra2 when it was released

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4225/the-ipad-2-review/5

A5X? No remotely close to being in the league of being 30% faster-

hmm approx. 3 x faster Egypt 2.1 Pro offscreen and 2X faster in Egypt 2.1 offscreen test against the Tegra3. Not sure where you got the 30% figure from

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5688/apple-ipad-2012-review/15

A6? We have a winner, first non old news SoC from Apple in years according to you-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review/10

A6X? Ouch, uhm-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6472/ipad-4-late-2012-review/3

Why are you linking to CPU performance page. We are talking about GPU performance and the next page shows the ipad4 being approx 50% faster than its the next best (Mali 604) in the offscreen test and 5x faster than the Tegra 3.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The A5 was introduced with the ipad2 and that was well over 2X faster than Tegra2 when it was released

Imagine someone who isn't a profoundly retarded moron lapping the rectum of a company. This person wouldn't argue A v B, but things based on merit. This person would take comments about how things relate to each other *regardless of who makes them*. Can you dream of such a thing?

hmm approx. 3 x faster Egypt 2.1 Pro offscreen and 2X faster in Egypt 2.1 offscreen test against the Tegra3. Not sure where you got the 30% figure from

How much brain damage do you need to suffer to be that stupid to only see things as black v white and cheerlead your company of choice? Seriously, I'll put a shotgun in my mouth if I ever approach being that dumb.

We are talking about

Who is "we"? You have two posts in your history here, or are you paid shill reinforcement coming to help try and clean up the embarassment that the other paid Apple shills have performed in the name of their company?

I explicitly, repeatedly, exclusively have been talking about SoCs. If we are going to talk about GPUs then we need to drop Apple from this conversation altogether, they are far too dumb to handle anything like that. That is a PowerVR versus nVidia discussion and isn't an SoC topic.

What percentage faster makes it so it isn't old news? How much of a failure at life do you have to be that you can't answer a simple guideline you create in your own mind? How can any human being be that ignorant?


Infraction for personal attacks
Moderator PM

 

[MrX8503]

It is only simple if you are a paid shill for Apple. Other then that, it is complicated to me how society can produce something as pathetic as a person who can't answer what percentage something is *IN THEIR OPINION*.

If you were a person thinking on your own, that would be a very, very simple question.

The only possible way it could be in the slightest bit difficult is if you were going back over all the previous benchmarks reading them over realizing that any number you come up with is going to either make a non Apple SoC not old news, or make Apple's offering old news.

For the sake of humanity I hope you are a paid shill.

The A5X's GPU is significantly faster than T3. It's pretty simple to everyone except you.

 

[Mopetar]

The point is that a smartphone smaller by volume has a smaller battery, which negates the battery life savings from having a smaller screen to an extent.

You're not getting the point. If a smaller screen is more efficient, it doesn't matter if the battery is also smaller. It will generally tend to have a longer battery life. However, without a good fundamental understanding of the technology or a well-controlled experimental test of battery life, I can't comment on the correlation between screen size and power usage. It is likely that there is not a 1:1 relationship between size and efficiency. I don't expect that the relationship is terribly far from 1:1, but it probably has an impact.

 

[thunng8]

Imagine someone who isn't a profoundly retarded moron lapping the rectum of a company. This person wouldn't argue A v B, but things based on merit. This person would take comments about how things relate to each other *regardless of who makes them*. Can you dream of such a thing?

I don't know what your problem is. i just posted relevant links that prove you are wrong about many things. I get you like Nvidia and hate Apple, but at least post comments that are based on reality. i.e. if you think you are correct, please backup your assertions with some data.

 

[grkM3]

mx is an apple fan boy,we all know that so move along.When I read his apple biased posts I always think of this song in my head.

The wheels on the bus go around and around ,around and around,around and around.

You are in an endless loop with him lol.

 

[BenSkywalker]

..

 

[thunng8]

You're not getting the point. If a smaller screen is more efficient, it doesn't matter if the battery is also smaller. It will generally tend to have a longer battery life. However, without a good fundamental understanding of the technology or a well-controlled experimental test of battery life, I can't comment on the correlation between screen size and power usage. It is likely that there is not a 1:1 relationship between size and efficiency. I don't expect that the relationship is terribly far from 1:1, but it probably has an impact.

Instead of making all these arguments, let's have some data points.

Samsung makes smartphones of various sizes and of the same generation (all released around mid-late last year):
- Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini (4")
- Samsung Galaxy S3 (4.8")
- Samsung Galaxy Note II (5.5")

GSMarena has done battery tests on all 3. I'll ignore the talk time one as it does not involve the screens being on:

s3 mini: http://blog.gsmarena.com/samsung-ga...hes-our-battery-tests-the-results-are-inside/

s3 and Note II: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii_vs_galaxy_note_ii-review-830p3.php

Web Browsing:
S3 Mini: 7:38
S3: 6:27
Note II:8:48

Video Playback:
S3 Mini: 7:46
S3: 9:27
Note II: 11:27

Nothing conclusive, but the trend is that larger screens have better battery life although the anomaly here is that the S3 has worse battery life than the s3 mini on web browsing.

Note that the S3 mini is the thickest of the 3 phones at 9.9mm vs 9.4 mm for the Note II and 8.6mm for the S3.

The above definitely does not support the argument that smaller screen=battery battery life, at least for Samsung phones.

 

[grkM3]

lol the note 2 has the biggest battery Samsung has ever put in a phone.The s3 mini has no 4g so its battery life should be better web surfing on 3g.

 

[Mopetar]

lol the note 2 has the biggest battery Samsung has ever put in a phone.The s3 mini has no 4g so its battery life should be better web surfing on 3g.

Actually the latest 4G radios and baseband chips are generally better and producing longer battery life because they are able to download or upload the data more quickly and either switch off or transition to a state where they use less power.

The design has also improved since the first 4G radios and chips, so they're going to be less power hungry in general.

Several more recent phones that have been reviewed by AT perform better in the 4G test than the 3G test. Here's a chart from the iPhone 5 review that illustrates the point:

Both the iPhone 5 and the One X get better 4G battery life than they do with 3G.

 

[grkM3]

You do know that the at battery tests have zero credibilty in any real cell forum right.even people on mac rumers say that they cant even get half that time that at got with there iphone 5.

I dont know a single phone that can get 8 hours of screen time on WiFi and the screen brightness all the way down.

Im sorry but I dont believe those results

 

[grkM3]

There are 2 iphone 5s in our family and they get about 3.5 to 4 hours of web browsing on wifi and with the data modem completely shut off.

8 hours on lte is not real world not even close

 

[Mopetar]

Instead of making all these arguments, let's have some data points.

Samsung makes smartphones of various sizes and of the same generation (all released around mid-late last year):
- Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini (4")
- Samsung Galaxy S3 (4.8")
- Samsung Galaxy Note II (5.5")

GSMarena has done battery tests on all 3. I'll ignore the talk time one as it does not involve the screens being on:

Nothing conclusive, but the trend is that larger screens have better battery life although the anomaly here is that the S3 has worse battery life than the s3 mini on web browsing.

The above definitely does not support the argument that smaller screen=battery battery life, at least for Samsung phones.

First you need to normalize the results for battery size, but you also aren't controlling for the SoC, screen type and resolution, and other possible differences that could impact the results.

The S3 mini has a 5.6 Whr battery, the S3 at 7.8 Whr battery, and the Note 2 an 11.78 Whr battery. So the normalized results should be:

Browsing:

S3 Mini: 1.36 hours / Whr
S3: .83 hours / Whr
Note 2: .75 hours / Whr

Video:

S3 Mini: 1.38 hours / Whr
S3: 1.21 hours / Whr
Note 2: .97 hours / Whr

However, the S3 mini is only using a dual core chip at roughly 2/3 the clock speed, so it's going to draw less power in general compared to either the S3 or Note 2; and the S3 uses a Krait, whereas the Note 2 uses an Exynos with slightly faster clocks. We also need to factor in the screens. The S3 and S3 mini are pentile, so they're going to draw less power. I'm also unsure how much brightness differences between the screens factor in, so that might also have an effect.

The best test is probably the video test as it doesn't need to consider the radio or baseband chip differences, and the SoC isn't an issue as all of them should be using dedicated decoding hardware and there shouldn't be too much of a difference there.

In that case, a larger screen is less efficient assuming all other variables are being controlled for. What would really prove this point is if any of Samsung's tablets used SAMOLED screens, in which case we'd have another good data point, but unfortunately they don't.