Nvidia Tegra 4 Benchmark Results 42
adeelarshad82 writes "Needless to say, the march of processor speeds always continues. However, Nvidia Tegra 4's benchmark results are off the charts. Comparing the results against several other phones, it was evident that Tegra 4 will make for the fastest mobile phones yet. For instance when benchmarked against iPhone 5, results showed 1640 on Geekbench and 27 fps on GLBenchmark's Egypt HD offscreen benchmark. Whereas the Tegra 4 scores 4148 on Geekbench and 57 fps on the Egypt HD. Of course, the competition isn't standing still, either. Qualcomm is countering the Tegra 4 with its Snapdragon 800, which the company claims is even faster than the Tegra 4. And at the same time Samsung is readying the Exynos 5 Octa."
Re: (Score:1)
Comparing the staying power ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's tempting to compare the speed of GPU/CPU on the smartphone, but as we all know, most of the apps out there have yet to tap out the power of quad-core CPU/GPU
On the other hand, what really counts is the staying power, ie., how long the battery can last
You can have the fastest phone there is, if it won't give the user hours and hours of usage without a recharging, that phone is next to useless
My suggestion, hence, is that next time they want to compare how good such-and-such phone is, or how fast this phone versus that, please include how long can one single full-charge of the battery can power at the top-most speed rating
Thank you !!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
>> AAPL.... I care about.... not their stupid stock price :))
Yeah, it seems you don't care abouit stock at all... so why do you say "AAPL" ???
Re: (Score:2)
When providing a point of comparison, choose one which the largest number of people will have had experience with.
I didn't even know Lenovo made phones.
I didn't even know Finland made an OS :P This is news for nerds, or at least, it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No one cares about the #1 and #2 highest selling phones in the world last quarter??
The Windows camp used to make the same argument about Windows95. It was a lame counterpoint then. It's still a lame counterpoint now.
Re: (Score:2)
No one cares about the #1 and #2 highest selling phones in the world last quarter??
The Windows camp used to make the same argument about Windows95. It was a lame counterpoint then. It's still a lame counterpoint now.
And Windows is still, by a wide margin, the most used desktop operating system in the world. Sounds like people cared about Windows 15 years ago and still do today.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many of those people chose Windows versus had it installed by the OEM and didn't know how to switch? I'm not really sure that people care so much as they don't care enough to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could have chosen to release OS X to OEM's too. I'm not saying they should have, but they could have.
Useful desktop applicatoins? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Step one, buy phone with bluetooth and HDMI output.
Step two, there is no step two, you've got a destop with a mobile phone processor.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of Android keys. No SATA, but USB for all the rest.
Cortex A15 processors in the Samsung Chromebook (Score:5, Informative)
Could these recent mobile phone processors be adapted to the desktop?
You can find Cortex A15 processors in the Samsung Chromebook. According to anandtech ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/samsung-chromebook-xe303-review-testing-arms-cortex-a15/6 [anandtech.com] ):
"The Cortex A15 is fast. Across the board we're seeing a 40 - 65% increase in performance over a dual-core Atom. Although it's not clear how performance will be impacted as companies work to stick Cortex A15 based SoCs in smartphones with tighter power/thermal budgets, in notebooks (and perhaps even tablets) the Cortex A15 looks capable of delivering a good 1 - 2 generation boost over Intel's original Atom core.
The IE10 browser tests tend to agree with our JavaScript performance tests, although the CSS Maze Solver benchmark shows a huge advantage for ARM over Intel's Atom here."
Is it useful at all ? (Score:2)
Hasn't tablet performance been "good enough" for a while now ? I know there are a few that use tablets for FPS gaming or content creation, but that's probably around 10% of the buyers ? The rest of us are more interested in creature comforts (good screen, good sound, reliability...), because running a browser, email, and facebook, even office apps, really doesn't take that much ?
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. You can never have too much processing power. It would definately be nice on tablets, or a next-gen Raspberry Pi. Or low power desktop computers. My TV has a CPU that is barely adequate for what it does. I'd love to see the netflix app really run smoothly.
But what I really want for my phone is better battery life. I'm completely happy with the performance of everything I do on my phone. I just miss the good old days when my flip phone could go 10 days on a charge.
if you use a smartphone like a flip phone (Score:2)
and only ever use it to text and make phone calls with no data plan, then it actually has pretty decent battery life. My dad has an LG Optimus L7 with no data plan. Using it for just voice/text it easily goes for multiple days on a charge.
The problem is that typically we do way more on a smartphone than we used to on feature phones, then we moan about how the battery doesn't last.
Think about it...part of the benefits of a smartphone is that you can do push email, RSS feeds, location-based reminders, mappi
One word: Javascript (Score:2)
So many sites are so Javascript heavy that it only takes about 3 months after the release of whatever the latest iPad is for it to start feeling slower.
It almost feels like the site developers were like "finally, more CPU, I can throw more JS into iPad web sessions."
When using a site like NYTimes.Com and writing a comment to a story was almost undoable on the iPad 1 due to massive lag between keystroke entry and the letter showing on the screen. When I upgraded to the 3 it was usable, but less so if I was
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
For iOS, yes, non-gaming performance is just fine. Navigating and scrolling is perfectly smooth. In Android, there's still some stutter, but small enough to be merely a visual distraction rather than a performance issue.
In gaming performance, Tegra 3 is impressive, allowing graphics comparable to budget titles on today's console. The main problem with mobile games isn't being throttled by hardware, they're being throttled by their pay model. They can make a good game, but since they need to make money by co
Re: (Score:2)
On Friday my company got a new beamer(after the old low-res, knackered one suffered an "accident"). First thing I did was hook up my tablet and test how good the refresh rates were. As it so happens I always have a PS3 controller with me(I use it to control my presentations I give with my tablet). That weird coincidence led to one of our sales reps to beat my times at Riptide GP. Sure, graphics wise tablets can't beat a full blown PC. It may take some tim
Paper tiger (Score:1)
So what? The Tegra has always had impressive benchmarks yet they consistently fail to impress when in an actual product. Is this one finally something more than a paper tiger?
This is not surprising or Informative (Score:5, Informative)
There are 2 different "Tegra4" chips. The Tegra4i is the only one that will ever end up in your smartphone, and it only includes Cortex A9 derived CPU cores and a GPU that, while quite good, includes far few processing units than the big-brother Tegra 4.
So basically: Of course the full-blown Tegra 4 beats smartphone chips. Guess what: So does Haswell, but you won't be seeing Haswell in smartphones either. There's a price to all that performance and Nvidia is targeting the heavy-weight version of Tegra 4 at tablets because the power draw won't fly in a smaller smartphone platform, where the Tegra4i will be Nvidia's offering.
summary (Score:2)
No plans for Tegra 4 in phones! (Score:5, Informative)
Tegra 4 will not be a phone part (at least not in any phoe that values battery life). Those A15 cores suck down batter life like vampires.
Like Tegra 3, Tegra 4 uses far too much power for mobile phones. The plan this time is to produce two products:
Tegra 4: 4 + 1 Coretex A15 + 72 shaders, several watts power consumption, aimed at tablets.
Tegra 4i: 4 + 1 tweaked Coretex A9 + 60 shaders + integrated LTE, much lower power. [tomshardware.com] Aimed at phones.
Nobody has committed to a Smartphone platform using the A15 precisely because the power consumption is too high. It may be tweaked over time, but right out the gate the power is just not there. This is why Apple went their own way with the A6.
Isn't Tegra4 for tablets? (Score:2)
I thought the mobile version was the slower Tegra4i. Why are they comparing it with the iPhone5 then and not iPad4?
n900 (Score:2)
Yawn... (Score:2)
Wake me up when the processors are so fast that they can warp the space time continuum...