I don't think Google would want to lose 2 cores going from Nexus 7 to 8, even if they gain 64-bit in the transition. BTW the previous Nexus 7 was announced in July with availability in November, so that'd be closer to Moorefield release as per Intel roadmap.I'll take it with a grain of salt right now. Perhaps Merrifield would be better suited for a cheap 8'' tablet, and July seems a bit soon for Moorefield, but... interesting if true.
Am I the only one who is annoyed by the many-core race in the smartphone/tablet market? The thermal limits of smartphones are multiple times less than laptops, yet there isn't a single Ultrabook with a quadcore processor. Meanwhile, you need to search very hard to find dualcore smartphones/tablets.I don't think Google would want to lose 2 cores going from Nexus 7 to 8, even if they gain 64-bit in the transition.
Am I the only one who is annoyed by the many-core race in the smartphone/tablet market? The thermal limits of smartphones are multiple times less than laptops, yet there isn't a single Ultrabook with a quadcore processor. Meanwhile, you need to search very hard to find dualcore smartphones/tablets.
Not necessarily.isnt more cores, less frequency a better solution for mobiles?
Not necessarily.
See:
A7 vs Exynos Octa
The A7 is clearly better.
Isn't that mostly due to the new ARM 64bit instruction set on A7 ? Since the Exynos Octa doesn't have 64bit compatibility there is really no comparison between the two, Snapdragon 800 would be more appropriate as a worthy adversary & that too only because it's a custom SoC, unlike the Exynos which uses vanilla ARM cores with Mali GPU.Not necessarily.
See:
A7 vs Exynos Octa
The A7 is clearly better.
To an extent.isnt more cores, less frequency a better solution for mobiles?
It has next to nothing to do with 64 bit. 64 bit accounts for something like a 10% performance boost on average.Isn't that mostly due to the new ARM 64bit instruction set on A7 ? Since the Exynos Octa doesn't have 64bit compatibility there is really no comparison between the two, Snapdragon 800 would be more appropriate as a worthy adversary & that too only because it's a custom SoC, unlike the Exynos which uses vanilla ARM cores with Mali GPU.
Ok, A7 vs Snapdragon 800 then.Isn't that mostly due to the new ARM 64bit instruction set on A7 ? Since the Exynos Octa doesn't have 64bit compatibility there is really no comparison between the two, Snapdragon 800 would be more appropriate as a worthy adversary & that too only because it's a custom SoC, unlike the Exynos which uses vanilla ARM cores with Mali GPU.
Ok, A7 vs Snapdragon 800 then.
A7 is still a better SOC in general. More cores only helps when code is highly parallel, or if multi-tasking is needed; neither of which is as important in low power mobile solutions.
depends on how you look at it, you you can lower the frequency of each cpu while spreading out the background tasks efficiently, then you can have good performance with a lower power draw.the more cores wouldnt need to ramp up frequency -and voltage- while having more aggregate performance.
I guess it is workload and scenario dependent.
depends on how you look at it, you you can lower the frequency of each cpu while spreading out the background tasks efficiently, then you can have good performance with a lower power draw.the more cores wouldnt need to ramp up frequency -and voltage- while having more aggregate performance.
I guess it is workload and scenario dependent.
isnt more cores, less frequency a better solution for mobiles?
Mobile CPUs are still getting higher (boost) frequencies. The Galaxy S3 had 4 Cortex A9 cores at 1.4GHz, S805 goes up to 2.5GHz.It's funny how we've moved from "I need more GHz!" to "I need more cores!".
Mobile CPUs are still getting higher (boost) frequencies. The Galaxy S3 had 4 Cortex A9 cores at 1.4GHz, S805 goes up to 2.5GHz.
Oh no you're not alone: at least for smartphones, I think that currently having more than 2 cores is useless. For tablets, I'm not that sure: perhaps we'll soon see some apps requiring more cores. But I certainly agree single-thread performance still is the most important thing right now (and arguably even on desktops for many apps).Am I the only one who is annoyed by the many-core race in the smartphone/tablet market?
Isn't this because Intel only provides dual core CPU for the Ultrabook form factor? I bet as soon as they'll have a quad core CPU (I guess 14nm will allow that), you'll see Ultrabook with four cores.The thermal limits of smartphones are multiple times less than laptops, yet there isn't a single Ultrabook with a quadcore processor. Meanwhile, you need to search very hard to find dualcore smartphones/tablets.
all retail places are like that, tablets locked down with security devices so you can only pick them up a bit, because otherwise all their tablets would be stolen. can't change people
Finally! Usb 3.0 and four SATA!!
depends on how you look at it, you you can lower the frequency of each cpu while spreading out the background tasks efficiently, then you can have good performance with a lower power draw.the more cores wouldnt need to ramp up frequency -and voltage- while having more aggregate performance.
I guess it is workload and scenario dependent.