There are two major type of smartphone/tablet mobile processor type/architecture

*ARM Cortex Application Processors
(os) android, iOS, BB OS, Window Phone 8, Window RT

*Intel x86 processors; Atom processor family with a new system
on chip (SoC) platform designed for smartphones and tablets.
(os) android x86, Window 8(Full version)

The Cortex A9 is too slow to compete with the likes of Intel’s Atom and Qualcomm’s Krait 200/300 based SoCs. The Cortex A15 on the other hand outperforms both of those solutions, but at considerably higher power and die area requirements.



http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/index.php


(For old era PDA Classic Processors)


This post has been edited by wkkm007: Feb 11 2014, 08:23 PM

sos/reference:
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=cpu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture
http://arm.com/products/processors/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ARM_m...processor_cores
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(system_on_chip)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big.LITTLE

So, who is the king here?
I read in /k and /android there so many debate on processor, so we can discuses all phone/tablet
any brand in this single thread.

This post has been edited by wkkm007: Apr 3 2013, 03:29 PM

Samsung
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce
OMAP by Texas Instruments; GPU PowerVR(under license)
Exynos by Samsung; GPU Mali and PowerVR
NovaThor by ST-Ericsson
BCMxxxx Broadcom
Marvell PXA986; GPU Vivante GC1000

Sony Mobile/ Sony Ericsson
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce
NovaThor by ST-Ericsson

HTC
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce

Acer
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
MTK MTxxxx by MediaTek
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce
Intel SoC

Asus
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
VIA WonderMedia PRIZM WMxxxx

LG
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
MTK MTxxxx by MediaTe
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce

Motorola
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
OMAP by Texas Instruments; GPU PowerVR(under license)
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce
Intel SoC

Various China Phone/Tablet high/mid end
MTK MTxxxx by MediaTek

Xiaomi
NVIDIA Tegra by NVIDIA; GPU Ultra-low power(ULP) GeForce
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx

Huawei
K3V2 HiSilicon by Huawei; GPU Vivante GC4000
K3V3 HiSilicon by Huawei; GPU ARM Mali-T658
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
MTK MTxxxx by MediaTek

ZTE
Snapdragon by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
Intel SoC

Various China/Malaysia Phone/Tablet budget/OEM
Actions ATMxxxx
Amlogic AML8726
RK3xxx by Rockchip
Axx by AllWinner

Malaysia brand

imobile
Marvell Pantheon
Qualcomm MSMxxxx by Qualcomm; GPU Adreno xxx
MTK MTxxxx by MediaTek

This post has been edited by wkkm007: Jan 18 2014, 03:15 AM

OMAP 5 still releasing? I thought TI rage quit the Soc industry? And there hasn't been any real products with true a15 design out yet apart from dual core on nexus 10 and the octa 8 on s4. IMO all the China mtk etc are for low/middle at best. King right now is the s600 and octa 8. Until later when they release s800. It's gonna be interesting fight between s800 and Tegra 4 for best performance although I have feeling Tegra 4 will win in performance but lose in power efficiency.

http://liliputing.com/2012/11/6-new-ti-oma...oming-soon.html

wow this pwn raspberry pi kau^2 woh

Tegra 4i and 4
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-4-processor.html
4i just ARM Cortex-A9 r4

I like to see Cortex-A50 series and Intel SoC

This post has been edited by wkkm007: Mar 27 2013, 04:14 AM

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=444..._count=1&ref=nf

NICE JOB DONE, SIFU aka wkkm007

Welome

Reply the below thread too.

Mobile phone display aka. screen, Which 1 is the best?
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=2776856&hl=

This post has been edited by wkkm007: Apr 19 2013, 04:43 PM

It's nice to see Intel triumphing ARM. Maybe soc price will start to drop.

BTW, if you guys search in YouTube for K900 benchmark, you will find there's one guy who did live Antutu score of 27825.

My Xperia SP score 7000++ online pun laju gila

ARM unveils Cortex-A12 and Mali-622 mid-range CPU and GPU




http://www.gsmarena.com/arm_unveils_cortex...u-news-6144.php

ARM has a problem – Cortex-A9 is old and the new Cortex-A15 cores just can't seem to make it to the market (the Exynos 5 Octa and Tegra 4 both have issues getting on shipping devices). The company just announced an interim solution, the Cortex-A12.
It offers a 40% performance increase over the A9 and should bring some power saving to the table too. It supports big.LITTLE configurations so it can be paired with Cortex-A7 to improve power efficiency even further (whether it will work or not is another matter, the A15/A7 pairing doesn’t do too well).


ARM's GPU line is in a similar spot – the new Mali-600 series really only shipped on the Google Nexus 10, most current chipsets rely either on a PowerVR GPU or an Adreno. So, here comes the Mali-622, a mid-range GPU to go with Cortex-A12.
It's an OpenGL ES 3.0, DirectX 11 and OpenCL 1.1 enabled GPU that promises 50% power-saving over the 604.


A new video core was also introduced, the Mali-V500 can encode 1080p video at 60fps and decode 4K at 120fps given enough cores.
Devices using the new generation mid-range chipsets using the Cortex-A12 and Mali-622 are expected in mid-2014.

Mediatek MT6592 8 core processors coming by the end of July!

http://www.gizchina.com/2013/07/02/mediate...he-end-of-june/



Reports out of Taiwan state that Mediatek will launch the MT6592 8-core processor by the end of July.

There was word that Mediatek were working on an 8 core chipset late last year, but like many we believed it had been placed on the back burner while they prepared their LTE chip. This seems to be wrong though as sources in Taiwan claim that Mediatek’s 8-core processor will arrive before the end of this month!
The MT6592 chip will be made up of 8 Cortex-A7, 28nm processor clocked at a frequency of up to 2Ghz! Early tests have the 8 core MT6592 scoring up to 30,000 points in Antutu which is more than Samsung’s 8 core Exynos 5410 processor.
The first batch of these new processors will be ready for manufacturers to begin development by the end of July, while Mediatek are preparing full-scale manufacture for November!
If everything goes to plan we can expect powerful 8 core phones from Tier 1 Chinese phone manufacturers by December!

Hope the next SoC race will focus on battery life performance. Intel SoC look promising and seems to going that way compared to ARM which seems to up the clockspeed(Ghz)more on each new release.

wah... they later becomes 2nd AMD ..
like AMD FX5100 (8Cores, 12HT)
and can't this

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sony-might-...92-chip_id44862

Sony might make a smartphone with new octa-core MediaTek MT6592 chip




This post has been edited by wkkm007: Jul 6 2013, 02:47 PM

Beside new processor, new storage solution embedded SATA nanoSSD replace eMMC

Innodisk outs embedded SATA nanoSSD, nets 480MB per second from one chip


http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/22/innodis...d-sata-nanossd/

While single-chip SSDs are clearly known quantities, they usually run at a much more leisurely pace than their larger counterparts. Innodisk doesn't think size and speed have to be contradictory -- it just unveiled an embedded version of its nanoSSD that performs almost as well as its much bigger counterparts. The µSSD-based SATA chip has a tiny footprint (0.63 x 0.79 inches) and draws just 1W of peak power, but can still read at up to 480MB/s and write at 175MB/s. As such, it's one of the few SSDs that can theoretically stuff desktop-class storage into a smartphone or tablet. Whether or not it will is another matter. Innodisk hasn't named customers for the nanoSSD so far, which leaves us guessing just where or when we'll see the drive in a finished product.

HIDE PRESS RELEASE
Innodisk Releases World's First Industrial-Embedded SATA µSSD – nanoSSD

Connector-free, high capacity microSSD for next-generation ultra-thin devices
May 22, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan – Innodisk, a designer and manufacturer of SSDs for commercial and industrial applications, announces a release of the industrial-embedded industry's first SATA device in accordance to SATA µSSD standards – nanoSSD.

Through the integration of a control chip, flash memory and peripheral power components into a single ball grid array (BGA) package, Innodisk has managed to reduce the size of the nanoSSD to approximately 1% the size of a 2.5" SSD. With dimensions of only 16 x 20 x 2 mm (WxLxH), a weight of only 1.5g, SATA III support, capacities ranging from 4 to 64 GB and both x86 and ARM compatibility, nanoSSD can be incorporated into a wide variety of applications where a small form-factor and high transfer rates are important, including industrial mobile devices, embedded systems, tablets, high-end smart phones and Ultrabooks.

Innodisk's nanoSSD not only offers the advantage of an incredibly small form factor, as a result of the integration of DRAM into a BGA, this product also features high read/write speeds of 480/175 MB/s, respectively. Whether for purposes of system booting, data storage, or data cache backup, nanoSSD can significantly improve overall system performance.

According to TrendForce predictions for 2013, demand for embedded memory technologies eMMC and SSD will heat up, with a forecast of overall NAND Flash demand growth to reach up to 47.6% with eMMC and SSD contributing to 15% of the NAND flash output growth. Embedded memory technology designed for smart phones, eMMC, has been one of the main choices of ultra-thin hand-held devices, however, being subject to performance limitations, they are usually only implemented in low-end models. For high-end applications such as high performance ultra-thin Ultrabooks, the SATA interface remains the optimal choice.

Designed according to MO-276 standards, the JEDEC standard for SATA microSSDs, nanoSSD is a single-chip SATA implementation which allows for easy design-in. With many applications in the industrial-embedded field, Innodisk's nanoSSD can be applied in embedded storage devices of various sizes, in particular, SATADOM, Innodisk's own world's smallest form factor disk on module series. With Innodisk's expertise in creating mini form factor modules, an even smaller DOM can be created.

This product is fully compliant with the industrial-embedded industry's standards, including: thermal sensor implementation, -40˚C to 85˚C wide operation range, shock-resistance and ATA security and military (MIL-STD-810F/G) compliant quick erase standards.

Innodisk further adds value through firmware optimization designed by in-house R&D, extending the life of its flash products through wear-leveling technology. Also, significantly reducing the risk of industrial applications is Innodisk's own disk monitoring tool – iSMART, which allows users to visualize SSD wear-leveling status at a glance with a clear graphical display, giving users time to replace damaged disks before they fail.

The ARM Diaries, Part 2: Understanding the Cortex A12
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7126/the-arm...-the-cortex-a12



A couple of weeks ago I began this series on ARM with a discussion of the company’s unique business model. In covering semiconductor companies we’ve come across many that are fabless, but it’s very rare that you come across a successful semiconductor company that doesn’t even sell a chip. ARM’s business entirely revolves around licensing IP for its instruction set as well as its own CPU (and now GPU and video) cores.

Before we get into discussions of specific cores, it’s important to talk about ARM’s portfolio as a whole. In the PC space we’re used to focusing on Intel’s latest and greatest microarchitectures, which are then scaled in various ways to hit lower price targets. We might see different core counts, cache sizes, frequencies and maybe even some unfortunate instruction set tweaking but for the most part Intel will deliver a single microarchitecture to cover the vast majority of the market. These days, this microarchitecture is simply known as Core.

Back in 2008, Intel introduced a second microarchitecture under the Atom brand to target lower cost (and lower power) markets. The combination of Atom and Core spans the overwhelming majority of the client computing market for Intel. The prices of these CPUs range from the low double digits with Atom to many hundreds of dollars for the highest end Core processors (the most expensive desktop Haswell is $350, however mobile now extends up to $1100). There are other designs that target servers (which are then repurposed for ultra high-end desktops), but those are beyond the scope of this discussion for now.

If we limit our discussion to personal computing devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktops), where Intel uses two microarchitectures ARM uses three. The graphic below illustrates the roadmap:



You need to somewhat ignore the timescale on the x-axis since those dates really refer to when ARM IP is first available to licensees, not when products are shipping to consumers, but you get an idea for the three basic vectors of ARM’s Cortex A-series of processor IP. Note that there are also Cortex R (embedded) and Cortex M (microcontroller) series of processor IP offered as well, but once again those are beyond the scope of our discussion here.

If we look at currently available cores, there’s the Cortex A15 on the high end, Cortex A9 for the mainstream and Cortex A7 for entry/low cost markets. If we’re to draw parallels with Intel’s product lineup, the Cortex A15 is best aligned with ultra low power/low frequency Core parts (think Y-series SKUs), while the Cortex A9 vector parallels Atom. Cortex A7 on the other hand targets a core size/cost/power level that Intel doesn’t presently address. It’s this third category labeled high efficiency above that Intel doesn’t have a solution for. This answers the question of why ARM needs three microarchitectures while Intel only needs two: in mobile, ARM targets a broader spectrum of markets than Intel.

Dynamic Range
If you’ve read any of our smartphone/tablet SoC coverage over the past couple of years you’ll note that I’m always talking about an increasing dynamic range of power consumption in high-end smartphones and tablets. Each generation performance goes up, and with it typically comes a higher peak power consumption. Efficiency improvements (either through architecture, process technology or both) can make average power in a reasonable workload look better, but at full tilt we’ve been steadily marching towards higher peak power consumption regardless of SoC vendor. ARM provided a decent overview of the CPU power/area budget as well as expected performance over time of its CPU architectures:



Looking at the performance segment alone, we’ll quickly end up with microarchitectures that are no longer suited for mobile, either because they’re too big/costly or they draw too much power (or both).

The performance vector of ARM CPU IP exists because ARM has its sights set higher than conventional smartphones. Starting with the Cortex A57, ARM hopes to have a real chance in servers (and potentially even higher performance PCs, Windows RT and Chrome OS being obvious targets).

Although we see limited use of ARM’s Cortex A15 in smartphones today (some international versions of the Galaxy S 4), it’s very clear that for most phones a different point on the power/performance curve makes the most sense.

The Cortex A8 and A9 were really the ARM microarchitectures that drove smartphone performance over the past couple of years. The problem is that while ARM’s attentions shifted higher up the computing chain with Cortex A15, there was no successor to take the A9’s place. ARM’s counterpoint would be that Cortex A15 can be made suitable for lower power operation, however its partners (at least to date) seemed to be focused on extracting peak performance from the A15 rather than pursuing a conservative implementation designed for lower power operation. In many ways this makes sense. If you’re an SoC vendor that’s paying a premium for a large die CPU, you’re going to want to get the most performance possible out of the design. Only Apple seems to have embraced the idea of using die area to deliver lower power consumption.

The result of all of this is that the Cortex A9 needed a successor. For a while we’d been hearing about a new ARM architecture that would be faster than Cortex A9, but lower power (and lower performance) than Cortex A15. Presently, the only architecture in between comes from Qualcomm in the form of some Krait derivative. For ARM to not let its IP licensees down, it too needed a solution for the future of the mainstream smartphone market. Last month we were introduced to that very product: ARM’s Cortex A12.

Slotting in numerically between A9 and A15, the initial disclosure unfortunately didn’t come with a whole lot of actual information. Thankfully, we now have some color to add.

INTRODUCTION TO CORTEX A12 & THE FRONT END

PRINT THIS ARTICLE
POST A COMMENT
65 Comments
View All Comments
JDG1980 - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
So, roughly speaking, how does ARM IPC compare to x86? Obviously it's not going to be as high as on modern big-core desktop x86 parts like SB/IB/Haswell, but how does it compare to Atom (both the current generation and the new one in the pipeline) and Bobcat/Kabini?
REPLY
nathanddrews - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
I think that was covered before:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6936/intels-silvermo...
REPLY
coder543 - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
The performance expectations (which relate to IPC) were misguided though. Intel's compiler was, essentially, cheating by skipping entire sections of the benchmark. http://www.androidauthority.com/analyst-says-intel...
REPLY
DanNeely - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
If I'm interpreting the labels on that graph correctly ("K900 at 1.0"); they've under clocked the atom by 50% (from 2ghz to 1ghz) from what it normally operates at; which would flip the results back to Intel winning the majority of the tests.
REPLY
Krysto - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
No, that's actually the *real* clock speed of Atom, which Intel misleadingly calls a "2 Ghz" core. The 2 Ghz speed is the turbo-boost speed, just like for laptops Haswell will really be clocked at 1.3 Ghz (same performance level as 1.5 Ghz IVB), and it goes up to 2.3 Ghz, or whatever, with Turbo-Boost.

The problem is that I think benchmarks do use the Turbo-Boost speed fully, which means Atom will do very well in benchmarks, while that may not be the case in real day to day life, where the phone might never activate the Turbo-Boost speed, and just use the slower "real clock speed" all the time.
REPLY
name99 - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
The fact of Turbo-Boost is a problem for lazy benchmarking, it is NOT a problem for Intel.

Why do you want a high speed core in your phone? There is a population that wants to run aggressive games, or transcode video or whatever, and these people care about sustained performance. But they're in the dramatic minority. For most users, the value of a high speed core is that it makes the phone more zippy, meaning that operations are fast when they need to be fast, after which the phone can go back to sleeping. The user-level "speed" of a phone is measured by how fast it draws a (single) PDF page, or renders a (single) complex web page, or launches an app, not by how it performs over any task that takes longer than a second. In such a world, if Turbo-Boost allows the app to sprint for a second, then go back to low-power mode, the user is very happy with that behavior.

The only "problem" with this strategy, for Intel, is that it is obvious and will be copied by everyone. Intel is there first and most aggressively for historical and process reasons, but there's no reason they will remain the only player.
(It's also quite likely that competitors will adopt the ideas of Turbo-Boost, just never call it that. After all the problem to be solved for phones is different from the REAL Turbo-Boost problem. Turbo-Boost comes from a world where you run the chip as hot as it can go --- till it just about to overheat. If an ARM core has no danger of actually overheating, then the design space is different. Now it's simply "we'll rate the core for 2GHz, but at that speed it uses up 10 nJ/op, so as far as possible we'll try to run it a 1GHz (using up 2 nJ/op) or better yet 100MHz (using up 10 pJ/op) [all numbers made up, but you get the point].)
REPLY
Wilco1 - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
All CPUs typically run at a far lower frequency than the maximum - I'm sure nobody believes eg. Krait 800 runs all 4 cores at 2.3GHz all the time. So if you call a specific frequency the "base" then anything faster than that is automatically a turbo boost. In that sense Intel's turbo boost is largely marketing, a way to claim a low TDP by setting the base frequency arbitrarily low, and allowing to go well over that TDP for a certain amount of time at a much higher boost frequency.
REPLY
inighthawki - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
My 3.5/3.9GHz advertised i7 4770K runs at 800Mhz at idle
REPLY
TomWomack - Thursday, July 18, 2013 - link
My desktop Haswell with Intel's retail cooler runs all four cores 24/7 turbo-boosted - I'm not quite sure what to, it reports 3401MHz in Linux but that's because /proc/cpuinfo asks ACPI which isn't fully compatible with turbo-boost. The machine draws 100W from the mains while doing so, which (given that it idles at 28W) is entirely consistent with the 84W TDP.

And, indeed, it runs at 800MHz at idle; and I suspect often slower than that, but /proc/cpuinfo doesn't report C-states
REPLY
RicDavis - Friday, July 19, 2013 - link
Intel's turbostat has proven very useful for getting good reporting of CPU clock speeds under Linux. with the -v option it also displays the maximum speeds that CPU will run at as the no of active cores varies. Recommended. i7z is another option, but I've seen it do a bad job of showing which cores are active when hyperthreading is enabled.

fwah... now SSD goes on NAND drives

Device with Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 MSM8974 Comparison

Comparison: Asus Padfone Infinity 2 A86 64GB vs. Acer Liquid S2 S520 vs. LG G2 KS1204 LGL22 vs. Sony Xperia Z1 LTE SO-01F vs. Samsung SM-P605 Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 LTE 64GB & other devices [32]

http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=pdacomparer&i...=4761&id32=4629