If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   If you own Qualcomm stock, now might be a good time to think about selling   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 30
    More: Weird, Qualcomm  
•       •       •

3923 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Aug 2013 at 12:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-03 12:44:06 PM
He's right. Adding 4 more cores to any phone isn't going to result in increased performance in anything except benchmarks. Nothing would make use of them anyway.
 
2013-08-03 12:47:03 PM

neilbradley: He's right. Adding 4 more cores to any phone isn't going to result in increased performance in anything except benchmarks. Nothing would make use of them anyway.


This.

But the tech doofuses who are only about superficial spec numbers will all be here in a sec to shout people like you down and circle jerk each other.
 
2013-08-03 12:56:09 PM
...didnt Qualcomm make Qmodem back in the day?

/Telix for life
 
2013-08-03 12:56:45 PM
What we need is a phone with a 3D printer.
 
2013-08-03 12:58:52 PM

neilbradley: He's right. Adding 4 more cores to any phone isn't going to result in increased performance in anything except benchmarks. Nothing would make use of them anyway.


But I want to play Angry Birds on an octo-core 3 GHZ processor.
 
2013-08-03 01:05:22 PM

neilbradley: He's right. Adding 4 more cores to any phone isn't going to result in increased performance in anything except benchmarks. Nothing would make use of them anyway.


The case for quadcores was so that each core has to do less work, thus require less power. I am not certain if this counts for 8 cores though, but it makes sense for 4.
 
2013-08-03 01:17:32 PM
Doesn't Qualcomm own the patents on CDMA?  They're part of the reason that Verizon's phones are so darned expensive.  Once Verizon goes VoLTE, their stock is going to drop like a rock.
 
2013-08-03 01:23:35 PM

enry: Doesn't Qualcomm own the patents on CDMA?  They're part of the reason that Verizon's phones are so darned expensive.  Once Verizon goes VoLTE, their stock is going to drop like a rock.


I took CDMA theory class with a Qualcomm engineer in 1999. Surely the patent must be nearly expired by now.
 
2013-08-03 01:25:14 PM
Anyone else read that as Octomom stock ? for a second there i was thinking 'who would ever own her stock in the first place ?'
 
2013-08-03 01:36:29 PM

enry: Doesn't Qualcomm own the patents on CDMA?  They're part of the reason that Verizon's phones are so darned expensive.  Once Verizon goes VoLTE, their stock is going to drop like a rock.


Qcom is a patent machine. They own much of the patents regarding LTE as well. Albeit they won't have as much of a stranglehold as they do with CDMA.
 
2013-08-03 01:39:22 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
fark it, we'll do 12
 
2013-08-03 01:43:52 PM
Four cores should be enough for anybody.

That out of the way, I tend to agree for the current generation of hardware, a year or two from now probably not.
 
2013-08-03 01:50:32 PM
Considering that the S800 line seems to be doing well, I think Qualcomm will be fine for the near future, at the very least.
 
2013-08-03 01:52:33 PM
Claims that alternating current is superior to direct current for long distance power transmission are similarly bogus.
 
2013-08-03 03:25:25 PM

enry: Doesn't Qualcomm own the patents on CDMA?  They're part of the reason that Verizon's phones are so darned expensive.  Once Verizon goes VoLTE, their stock is going to drop like a rock.


No, they actually make the preferred chipsets for LTE in the US market. Because of this, the Galaxy S3 and S4 variants for the US use Snapdragons instead of Samsung's own Exynos chips. If you want you play in the US market, you pretty much have to use a Snapdragon these days.

I tend to agree with their stance. Adding cores isn't what is needed at this point, the chips need yo be more efficient per core and the OSes need to be optimized better. Android for example, JUST got TRIM support in 4.3, so finally you don't have the phones and tabs slowing down months after you use them because of all the garbage building up in the flash memory. Things like that help with responsiveness way more than adding chips. Same goes for vendors like Samsung better optimizing their skins so they aren't noticeably laggier than stock Android.
 
2013-08-03 03:33:30 PM
Those saying that it isn't practical, what about in the near future when the next OSes do take advantage of multi-threading?  Weren't similar arguments made when hyper threading and multi-core x86 computers game out?

Nobody is complaining when new video cards hit new core records and those are used all the time in OpenCL computing.  Now several mainstream programs are adding OpenCL code to take advantage of all this horsepower.  OpenCL is now supported by almost all the next gen ARM chips (except Tegra 4).
 
2013-08-03 03:40:29 PM

Brontes: Those saying that it isn't practical, what about in the near future when the next OSes do take advantage of multi-threading?  Weren't similar arguments made when hyper threading and multi-core x86 computers game out?

Nobody is complaining when new video cards hit new core records and those are used all the time in OpenCL computing.  Now several mainstream programs are adding OpenCL code to take advantage of all this horsepower.  OpenCL is now supported by almost all the next gen ARM chips (except Tegra 4).


Which is all the more reason not to waste die space and tdp on more mostly unused functional units, instead add more power to the GPU, you'll notice that a hell of a lot more than going from 4 to 8 cores.
 
2013-08-03 04:22:33 PM

robodog: Brontes: Those saying that it isn't practical, what about in the near future when the next OSes do take advantage of multi-threading?  Weren't similar arguments made when hyper threading and multi-core x86 computers game out?

Nobody is complaining when new video cards hit new core records and those are used all the time in OpenCL computing.  Now several mainstream programs are adding OpenCL code to take advantage of all this horsepower.  OpenCL is now supported by almost all the next gen ARM chips (except Tegra 4).

Which is all the more reason not to waste die space and tdp on more mostly unused functional units, instead add more power to the GPU, you'll notice that a hell of a lot more than going from 4 to 8 cores.


It depends on what is being done.  It takes time to copy to the GPU and back, sometimes it is easier to spawn a new thread and run it on the CPU.  Also, if one wants to acquire and process data asynchronously, it is much nicer to have more CPU cores.  Say if you are taking a video with one core and handling passing the data to OpenCL in another and displaying the data in a 3rd.  If the OS allows for truly multi-threaded applications, more CPU cores is fine with me.
 
2013-08-03 04:23:18 PM

Mad_Radhu: enry: Doesn't Qualcomm own the patents on CDMA?  They're part of the reason that Verizon's phones are so darned expensive.  Once Verizon goes VoLTE, their stock is going to drop like a rock.

No, they actually make the preferred chipsets for LTE in the US market. Because of this, the Galaxy S3 and S4 variants for the US use Snapdragons instead of Samsung's own Exynos chips. If you want you play in the US market, you pretty much have to use a Snapdragon these days.

I tend to agree with their stance. Adding cores isn't what is needed at this point, the chips need yo be more efficient per core and the OSes need to be optimized better. Android for example, JUST got TRIM support in 4.3, so finally you don't have the phones and tabs slowing down months after you use them because of all the garbage building up in the flash memory. Things like that help with responsiveness way more than adding chips. Same goes for vendors like Samsung better optimizing their skins so they aren't noticeably laggier than stock Android.


All that is what the Motorola X is supposed to be about, but it is getting creamed in some reviews (and wanna be techies) that are complaining it is last years stuff...
 
2013-08-03 05:45:11 PM

Fank: neilbradley: He's right. Adding 4 more cores to any phone isn't going to result in increased performance in anything except benchmarks. Nothing would make use of them anyway.

The case for quadcores was so that each core has to do less work, thus require less power. I am not certain if this counts for 8 cores though, but it makes sense for 4.


This.... I understand that everything is trending towards multi-core systems and multi-threaded apps, but I don't think that cell phones are quite ready to utilize 8 shiatty little cell phone cores...  I would rather have 4 beefier cores on my phone... IMHO...   In the future that will change though.
 
2013-08-03 05:46:57 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: What we need is a phone with a 3D printer.


You are persistent... Ill give you that...
 
2013-08-03 06:00:05 PM
Isn't the qualcom snapdragon processor used in just about every high end smartphone being released?
 
2013-08-03 06:04:53 PM
I'm really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
 
2013-08-03 06:51:30 PM
At least half of commercial vehicles have a Qualcomm unit. Eventually Dept of Transportation will require similar units in all regulated vehicles. QCs record the ignition state and location, as well as automatically recording drive times, and provide satellite communication with dispatch. They are licensed, $3000 for installation and $35 per week. The company will be fine no matter what happens to cell phones.
 
2013-08-03 08:27:05 PM
Companies like PeopleNet are in that market too, and growing like gangbusters
 
2013-08-03 09:42:39 PM

Fank: The case for quadcores was so that each core has to do less work, thus require less power. I am not certain if this counts for 8 cores though, but it makes sense for 4.


It makes _exactly_ as much sense for eight as it does for four.
 
2013-08-03 10:46:13 PM
8 cores makes no more or less sense than 4. We have a shortage of developers who know how to properly develop for concurrency, let alone parallelism. When we fix that, it will make more sense.
 
2013-08-04 01:33:02 AM

MooseUpNorth: Fank: The case for quadcores was so that each core has to do less work, thus require less power. I am not certain if this counts for 8 cores though, but it makes sense for 4.

It makes _exactly_ as much sense for eight as it does for four.


Erm, no. See Amdahl's Law
 
2013-08-04 07:02:31 AM

daveinsurgent: 8 cores makes no more or less sense than 4. We have a shortage of developers who know how to properly develop for concurrency, let alone parallelism. When we fix that, it will make more sense.




Hardware is a cheaper risk than expecting that resource pool to expand.
 
2013-08-04 07:44:07 AM

imgod2u: MooseUpNorth: Fank: The case for quadcores was so that each core has to do less work, thus require less power. I am not certain if this counts for 8 cores though, but it makes sense for 4.

It makes _exactly_ as much sense for eight as it does for four.

Erm, no. See Amdahl's Law


daveinsurgent: We have a shortage of developers who know how to properly develop for concurrency, let alone parallelism. When we fix that, it will make more sense.


This. Also, if the other sense of 'power' was intended, eight cores will only 'require less power' by turning off most of the cores. If you're not using them, may as well not have 'em. It's just heat-seeker porn at the moment.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report