News - Reader comments

Exynos 5250 SoC goes into mass production in Q2, tablets get it first

27 January, 2012 | Read the news | Post your comment
Exynos 5250 SoC goes into mass production in Q2, tablets get it first - read the full textDuring Samsung's earnings call, they took a minute to talk about the Exynos 5250 System-on-a-Chip (SoC) they announced last year. It's already sampling to manufacturers and it will go into mass production in Q2 this year. The chipset packs two Cortex-A15 cores running at 2.0GHz, which reportedly...


Sort by:

Dude that's not the way it works.

Battery depends on screen , software , RAM , Antennas/sensors.
Screen resolution and size of it relative to resolution and technology depends on processor. Some screens need more processing power to display more colors and HD content streaming as well as play back.

Software need battery management to ensure unnecessary processes won't run at background for long time. Instead intelligently keep some processes which are inactive in sleep mode ( example pausing/sleeping games automatically when we switch to other app and bring it back active when we switch back , or we have anti virus , software must leave out antivirus and make remaining apps go passive , there are API'S for different multitasking needs. For example iOS has 9 multitasking services which saves lot of battery.
Android on other hand is little bit open so every app needs to be closed manually , they don't get killed or go passive.
So android battery always bad ( note has like 2500 mah battery and lasts very less compared to ios devices).

If ur app is not tailored for dual core , then it utilises only single core.
Which means dual core phones only good for browser but 3rd party apps are waste.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-30 11:58
  • ut3s

> In reply to joonius @ 2012-01-30 07:39 from qbYT - click to readok thanks for correction

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-30 09:17
  • vbRe

> In reply to nokia rulez @ 2012-01-30 07:32 from vbRe - click to readNice example... SGS2 lasts longer than SGS1.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-30 07:39
  • qbYT

> In reply to SFAN @ 2012-01-29 19:19 from qbc1 - click to readi know that Intel chips are different from SOC what i was trying to say is no matter how many cores you add mutlitasking will always result in poor battery life if you say we should down clock the frequency of cores to get good battery life so what is the point of having 2.5 Ghz of processing power if not going to use it take eg of SGS2 battery life is lower than SGS

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-30 07:32
  • vbRe

> In reply to nokia rulez @ 2012-01-29 08:04 from vbRx - click to readYou know nothing about soc architecture. ARM CPU uses much less power than Intel chips. Furthermore, Quad core makes your phone heat up much less than dual core. Also,Intel chips are x86 made for specifically for PC.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-29 19:19
  • qbc1

> In reply to Kevin McIntyre @ 2012-01-28 14:49 from m5E9 - click to readactually Quad core will eat more battery just check out intel chips i7(6 cores) there power rating is higher than i5 (2/4 cores)so it is better to have dual core than quad core and most important thing we will never use that kind of processing power since we already have GPU to boost the performance of CPU so adding two more cores only result in poor battery life we should not forget that there some other units that consume power i.e, RAM while multitasking processor is not the only thing that we use, System constantly uses RAM to keep App running along with GPU and Display so this will add Load on battery resulting poor battery life

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-29 08:04
  • vbRx

more cores, lower clock speed the more efficient it is, the more difficult it becomes to code and the higher the overheads more cpu work required..

I'm hoping in the next few years they'll find a way to make a super conductor material that has no resistance at room temperature, until then we just have to rely on tricks to reduce the heat and improve the performance without sticking to moore's law.. until then..

check out intel's new line or atom cpu's, they do some nifty little tricks which brings the power consumption to virtually nothing when idling..

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-29 06:00
  • sG%5

> In reply to Kevin McIntyre @ 2012-01-28 14:57 from m5E9 - click to readWhat u said is true but in real world what u said doesn't work 90% of the time.

That entire theory works only when applications are written and optimized for quad/dual core instead of single core.

If applications are not done in that way then single core is more efficient in battery compared to dual or quad.

Today most android developers still target 2.3 or 2.2 versions which dont have hardware acceleration in their UI Because still majority of consumers use low range or mid range phones which have 512 or 256 MB RAM and Approx 1 Ghz or 600-700 Mhz processors.

Even though dual core phones and tablets are being shipped right from Q1 2011 , still apps are not utilizing multi-thread processing power of multicores because Android is not optimized in many ways (i mean 2.2 or 2.3 which dont have good optimization compared to iOS) but i dont know if ICS has better efficiency due to hardware acceleration and support for multi-threading for apps by default/automatic.
It takes another 2-3 years to get efficiency of multicores.

Even though Android and iOS ready to deploy multi-cores , we need apps to see real difference in performance.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 16:05
  • ut30

> In reply to cjdelphi @ 2012-01-28 05:38 from sG%5 - click to readNot sure if you saying it is better or worse dual vs quad?

The key is not the time it takes, but the impact on the battery. Batteries perfer steady loads, so from any energy point of view two cores running at a higher performance vs four at a lower performance, the latter is more energy efficient.

Added to this for the SoC with the dual core and quad core having the same performance level (not talking clock speed here, rather their ability to complete work), then the dual core will cause more heat, more heat means more leakage current. More leakage current means shorter battery life.



  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 14:57
  • m5E9

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-01-27 18:26 from 3qjv - click to readSorry you have it wrong dual core vs quad core at the same performance level will for sure mean the quad core is better for the battery.

Bottom line, better to run four cores at a lower performance than two at a higher performance. So quad cores are needed for smartphones just as much as tablets

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 14:49
  • m5E9

yeap thats what happened with ps3.... Most game developers never utilized 6 cores in ps3 processor.....

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 14:23
  • t}EF

> In reply to Iam_black @ 2012-01-27 23:14 from tA$k - click to readThe cortex-A15 is a dual core processor and the Exynos chipset packs two of them, thus making it a quad core...

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 11:51
  • nFbI

there is no need of quad core for galaxy s3 as well as other smartphones for at least 2-3 years.dual core is more than enough.current applications run only on single core,the other core remains medfield processor has already shown stunning performance on a single core at ces has slapped all the current dual core the fact is that the dual core smartphones cant go back to single core,otherwise the smartphone brands will loose their rising trend.the only thing they can do is they must optimized the performance of current dual core processors i.e. make them faster,energy efficient by using 32nm,28nm etc lithography,increased the amount of L1 cache memory & also increase virtual cores(threads)than increasing physical cores.Exynos 5250 is a great example of this fact.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 08:52
  • tE%j

I would easily choose quad-core for simple reason which is "future-proof"

in desktop world, dual-cores can't stand against quad-core even when it's overclocked to extreme frequencies and actually it then becomes very hot and that's very bad for the device.

multi-threading and parallelism will be much better and more efficient on future android versions like "Jelly beans" and other newer releases which will force devs to code their apps the way it's meant to be coded and optimized for the OS.

So, Tegra 3 for me this time.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 08:43
  • 3EYc

still confused about what's better dual/quad vs single higher speed cores... here's an analogy.

20kgs of cement bags are dropped off on the other side, by accident and we want them back on the other side of the road but the truck which dropped them off has gone, so what do you do?...

Think of the CPU as single guy, higher his clock speed the fitter he is, so in 2 examples we have..

2 Men, each pick up 10kg each then walk across the road... but both men are a little old, and it will take them longer to get those cement bags across.. any
way the both get to the other side at the same time, let's consider them to be 1ghz each, 20 kg/s moved in 1 lot in say 5 minutes..

1 man this time, this guy's twice as fit, let's consider him 2gighz core, this time he can get the bag of cement which is 10kg (he can't carry 20kg, because he's not fit enough) so he grabs 1 bag takes it to the other side in guess what, yup 2.5minutes, he runs across gets the other bag, and carries across, all up a little over 5 minutes.. on a computer, running back to the other side of the road would be a simple memory jump, which is instant...

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 05:38
  • sG%5
  • Gaurav Vyas - INDIA
  • Report
  • Rating0

And how will they cool this monster.....with a heatsink and fan?

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 05:28
  • vbP1

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-01-27 19:02 from kbr{ - click to readtrue, but..

1. 2 cores (unless I failed to remember rightly so be nice) I believe say 2 1.5ghz is more efficient than 1 2gig.. and I think better on the battery life, i'm going to have to look it up to be sure now.

2. writing code to take advantage of dual cores is not all that difficult using a couple of threads, eg 1 CPU to deal with the networking and packets and all that and the other to orchestrate the GPU and doing all the trivial OS work and checking hardware commands and presses, etc... it's not as difficult as you imagine, 2 threads each processor deals with it.

more software than you imagine..

So while it's true, a 2ghz cpu is more powerful than 2 1ghz cores, simply because each cpu can only run at 1ghz.., eg, 30 minutes of work on dual 1ghz core will take 15 minutes if workload is split (harder to do, a little overhead overall a bit slower for that reason) while a 2ghz core will do it in 15 minutes as well.. it's just a little harder to code..


Thread t1 = new TestThreads();
Thread t2 = new TestThreads();

in a normal CPU (unless you're hyperthreading) you can create 2 threads and then you specify the thread to work with a specific core, you could have a quad core each performing a math routine on each different core and working out the results faster than a 4ghz machine and significantly cheaper to produce a quad 1ghz vs a 4ghz core....

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 05:27
  • sG%5

please samsung put this on the next generation samsung galaxy note!

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 04:50
  • j@ve

All these Ghz are useless if they don't have apps optimized for them.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 04:48
  • 4cSy

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-01-27 19:02 from kbr{ - click to readTrue, I've been running my galaxy note in single core mode with the second core app, absolutely no peformance difference. For now the dual core is just 100% gimic and a total waste of battery.

  • Reply
  • 2012-01-28 03:37
  • t7FR

Note: Sponsored advertising links are in green.