Another holey OLED
IpsDisplay, 01 Mar 2020Are you sure they are common
I can only think of the Google pixels camera coprocessor of t... moreAs you can see in those images of the Samsung Galaxy S10 motherboard :
So yeah, coprocessor are actually quite common, it's just that most of the time we don't call them or regard them as coprocessors.
There are actually a lot of chips designed to do specific jobs, the Cirrus Logic audio chips are a good example, some people may not consider most of the really simple chips as coprocessor, but by definition they are, though an audio chip or a dedicated GPU are officially considered as coprocessor, so every smartphone with an audio chip technically have a coprocessor, but most of the time the chip isn't important enough to refer to it as a coprocessor or to even talk about it.
Anonymous, 01 Mar 2020this phone looks amazingStill nice looking, but not as a standout as OPPO Find X (2018).
mikiti, 01 Mar 2020hopefully not more than 900I would price it at $1500. Technologically the most worthy smartphone of the year by far.
this phone looks amazing
AnonD-909757, 01 Mar 2020Both as the anonymous dude said, they are already common, but also there are many issue that p... moreAre you sure they are common
I can only think of the Google pixels camera coprocessor of the tip of my head
Just another brick in the wall...
IpsDisplay, 01 Mar 2020I wonder why manufacturers aren't making comprocessors mainstream yetBoth as the anonymous dude said, they are already common, but also there are many issue that prevent them to be used for EVERYTHING, such as :
_They are more expensive to make than a software solution, because you need a guy with the right knowledge and you need to make them.
_It is easier to find a programmer who will code things than a guy who not only know how to code this thing but also implement it on a chip.
_It have to do a better job than a software otherwise it is useless and with a limited number of instructions otherwise it become too big, complicated, take too much space and cost more.
_It is harder to create than a software and require more time to make them
_You have no room for error because while a software can be patched latter with an update, the chip will keep its problems so you need to make it perfect first time.
So they exist for many things, but because of all those issues (which anyway all translate as a cost limitation) they don't make one for each specific things in a phone.
For example, while one entirely specialized to handle the tactile with included accidental touch detection (mostly useful on curved edges display, but on flat one too), learning capabilities and gesture detection would make for a really nice chip, I think (I am no expert on Smartphones) the raw data are handled by the SoC itself, because it would be too expensive to make such chip just for that while the SoC already handle it well.
As I said I may be wrong about that one as I don't know how the tactile data are handled, it is only an example.
IpsDisplay, 01 Mar 2020I wonder why manufacturers aren't making comprocessors mainstream yetThe are already common.
AnonD-919704, 01 Mar 2020I think single selfie camera notch with small bezel will be better than this punch hole designIf they were to put a bezel rather than a punch hole (which I would have love, through I prefer the pop up solution), they'd rather take advantage of the available space on the bezel to also put 2 camera and all the 3D face recognition sensors, after all the original Find X had them, most of us were actually originally expecting/hopping for a smartphone with a pop up and the good face unlock tech.
The original Find X was also one of the first fullscreen phone to get released, so the pop up would make more sense than a bezel, Oppo have other phone that could use bezel rather than hole, notch or even pop up (though Oppo have been popular for its pop up phones), but the punch hole clearly have nothing to do on the Find X2, they only put it because they couldn't do the useless too hyped underdisplay camera thingy.
IpsDisplay, 29 Feb 2020All I care about is the supposed co processor
How useful will it be....
And will co pr... moreIt would need to be quite poorly done to not output positive things.
I hope it will, coprocessors for a lot of things would be useful, when done properly they do a better job for less ressources and less battery drain than a SoC or CPU.
Basically your typical PC graphic card is already a co-processor, same for the sound chip.
Since you aren't space limited as in a CPU or SoC, you can put highly specialized circuits in it, in a CPU or SoC it would not be possible to start filling it with tons of specialized circuits because of space and complexity reasons, but in a co-processor it make perfect sense, it would be stupid not to actually as you actually will reduce its size making circuits specialized for the actions the chip have to do rather than putting all regular general use circuits and use them one after the other so all instructions perform your algorithm.
That's why it is faster, rather than being on a chip having lots of various general instructions and only using some of them, you can put only few specialized based on what your hardware will do.
That's also more power efficient as you have less transistors and you need to do less operations, also you can easily set the chip frequency to be only as required and even put it on sleep when not used.
So because you can put lots of specialized circuits, you can put some that would be a waste on a CPU but that are actually doing things a regular CPU isn't capable to do, like some dedicated AI functions, here it can be smart backlighting management for example or even frames extrapolations or extrapolation.
The negative side is that you can't just upgrade it through software, the CPU or SoC who don't generally perform those through hardware but through software have the advantages of not being limited to a single version, through in practice there is still some updates possibilities, but the positive side is that, once you get a good chip, you can easily use it on many devices and you can upgrade it to a new version for your Phone P2 without changing the main SoC of the Phone P1 or the opposite, change the SoC in the P2 but keep the same coprocessor chip.
Lots of things could use those specialized chips :
Display, sound, microphone, fingerprint reader, camera, facial recognition, environment sensors (compass, magnetometer, accelerometers, gyroscopes, altimeter).
They all would allow more advanced functions, output better result, faster, with virtually no additional processing power requirement (compared to a phone without the function itself, meaning way better than phone who use their SoC to do it) and with négligeable battery drain, the only issue is that, the more of those chips, the more space it will require and the SoC chipset equivalent part will need to be handle those.
But they may simply have implement it so poorly that it won't get any benefit, that's a risk...
I think single selfie camera notch with small bezel will be better than this punch hole design
Anonymous, 29 Feb 20201. s20 has 4000 while s20+ has 4500. No one has complained about them
2. s20 and s20+ have 3x... more4500 is bigger than 4200, so? That's for the Samsung with the same screen size.
Again, 3x is more than 2x, right?
I agree that a punch hole is better for device longlivety than a periscope camera. The mechanics will break and we're now expecting phones to just work in the rain.
Anonymous, 01 Mar 2020OnePlus may use too. OnePlus 8 pro using the IMX 686.
Anonymous, 29 Feb 2020Easily more than $800. hopefully not more than 900
IMX 689 is 1/1.3" sensor.
Big hopes from this camera.
Let's see how it performs against the IMX 555 & IMX 700 & HM1 sensors.
Specs are great.