How powerful is the new Quad-core Cortex-A7 MediaTek MT6589 processor ?

[OBLAMA2009]

mediatek seems to be the cpu of choice for low end crap. a7 based? that has suck written all over it. why dont you get galaxy s4, is it cuz everyone pays outright for their phone so they have to be cheap?

 

[Cerb]

Qualcomm has been dual core since 2010 and quad core since 2012. You must mean single-chip, as Qualcomm is the only(?) company with the CPU, GPU and Modem all integrated into one single chip.

No, I mean single core, like the MSM-7227(A, which simply refuses to exit the market. Also, Mediatek is very much advertising having a modem, and nV's next chips will, too. They had a good run with that, but integration always stuffs more in the die.

Chips like Mediatek's here aren't that level, today, but they are likely on track for similar wide adoption by getting progressively better supported and cheaper, over time.

mediatek seems to be the cpu of choice for low end crap. a7 based? that has suck written all over it. why dont you get galaxy s4, is it cuz everyone pays outright for their phone so they have to be cheap?

Because it's a phone first, web browser second, terminal client third (and not that for most people), Angry Birds host fourth, and web browsing is the only really CPU intensive task of those three things? It's fine to want more, better, sleeker, etc., but just as people happily drive cheap cars, use cheap notebooks, cheap desktops, etc., there's also a sizable market for cheap smart phones. 4 cores is half advertising, but it won't hurt, and it was probably almost free in the scheme of things for Mediatek, so why not?

 

[Hubb1e]

4 cores is half advertising, but it won't hurt, and it was probably almost free in the scheme of things for Mediatek, so why not?

Each A7 core is less than 1mm2. They are downright tiny so yes, the CPUs in these chips are almost free so why not quad core. The GPU and other parts of the processor take up far more space than the A7 CPU. I'm a fan of the A7. It's an extremely small die with decent performance and was a smart move for ARM. I'd like to see the A7 in a lot more devices such as media streamers and BD players and TVs. Maybe then the Netflix interface won't be laggy as hell. The new Roku has a dual core 1.5ghz A9 and is amazingly fast compared to other streamers I've used. If some of those streamers would drop in a dual core A7 at 1.5ghz then they'd be nearly as fast for a cheap price.

 

[Vesku]

To answer the question directly, according to Anandtech's preview it should be roughly A7 MHz * 0.76 = A9 MHz equivalent. From what benchmarks I could find this seems to fit, A7 SoCs are likely to have "meh" graphics though. It's nice to see Mediatek chose a middling GPU rather than bottom tier.

 

[FwFred]

It seems clear the A7 was designed for ~$100-150 (no subsidy) entry smartphone market. I can't imagine this CPU being desirable much beyond this. ARM has a bit of a sweet spot problem for mid-end smartphones, with the A9 being dated (no integrated L2), the A7 being under powered, and the A15 being too hot. I can see why Qualcomm and Apple designed their own uarch for high end phones as ARM doesn't have anything appropriate.

 

[jpiniero]

It seems clear the A7 was designed for ~$100-150 (no subsidy) entry smartphone market. I can't imagine this CPU being desirable much beyond this. ARM has a bit of a sweet spot problem for mid-end smartphones, with the A9 being dated (no integrated L2), the A7 being under powered, and the A15 being too hot. I can see why Qualcomm and Apple designed their own uarch for high end phones as ARM doesn't have anything appropriate.

I think the Quad A7 should be plenty for the next tier - the $200-300 market, which is going to be the vast majority of the non-Apple smartphone sales in the not too distant future. Because of how cheap the A7 is, you could put the features people really want - 5", 1080p, integrated LTE - and still hit that price point.

 

[FwFred]

I think the Quad A7 should be plenty for the next tier - the $200-300 market, which is going to be the vast majority of the non-Apple smartphone sales in the not too distant future. Because of how cheap the A7 is, you could put the features people really want - 5", 1080p, integrated LTE - and still hit that price point.

Moving from a $15 SoC to a $8 SoC will allow you to get a 5" 1080p screen and LTE? :whiste:

edit: typos

 

[asimpleson]

No, I mean single core, like the MSM-7227(A, which simply refuses to exit the market. Also, Mediatek is very much advertising having a modem, and nV's next chips will, too. They had a good run with that, but integration always stuffs more in the die.

Chips like Mediatek's here aren't that level, today, but they are likely on track for similar wide adoption by getting progressively better supported and cheaper, over time.

Because it's a phone first, web browser second, terminal client third (and not that for most people), Angry Birds host fourth, and web browsing is the only really CPU intensive task of those three things? It's fine to want more, better, sleeker, etc., but just as people happily drive cheap cars, use cheap notebooks, cheap desktops, etc., there's also a sizable market for cheap smart phones. 4 cores is half advertising, but it won't hurt, and it was probably almost free in the scheme of things for Mediatek, so why not?

Second that opinion..

Mediatek are getting progressively better.
I love german cars but afford only japanese and would probably settle for korean too

Anyone skeptical about Mediatek should also read how they too are driven by innovation.

Here is a link supporting that statement -
http://www.microwavejournal.com/art...alcomm-in-rf-with-worlds-smallest-transceiver

 

[Rdmkr]

Moving from a $15 SoC to a $8 SoC will allow you to get a 5" 1080p screen and LTE? :whiste:

edit: typos

It's not just the cost of the SoC that matters; it's everything around it. Try running a high end quad core cortex A15 phone with FHD screen on a regular +/- 2000mAh battery, for example. Samsung itself admits you can't do this, since they have to put in another energy efficient A7 quad-core chip in to lighten the load, and their battery is 2600mAh to boot. And if you're going to remove either of the two chips and put the cheaper battery etc back in it's only removing the A15 that leaves you with something workable in terms of energy consumption. And that, running 5" FHD screened phones on quad-core A7, is exactly what several Chinese manufacturers are now doing. They are available from +/- $225 at international retailers and significantly less within China.

ps. the fact that people have to compare these to a phone that is being sold below cost by a company more interested in popularizing it's OS than selling phones to make them look bad speaks volumes about how cost-competitive they otherwise are.

 

[mohit9206]

How is the performance of single core based cortex A5 shipping in devices like Galaxy S Duos,Xperia e etc ?

 

[Exophase]

How is the performance of single core based cortex A5 shipping in devices like Galaxy S Duos,Xperia e etc ?

Worse than a Cortex-A7 at the same clock speed and only able to clock up to 1GHz. So pretty bad. Generally they'll do worse than 1GHz Cortex-A8 devices that are two years older despite running a newer version of Android.

 

[Boocy]

Hello people..
Just registerd here to tell you that I actually have MT6589 phone, (intermediate version of chip with GPU clocked at ~300MHz) ..I score 14400 on AnTuTu benchmark v3.4, but that is mostly becouse I bought a phone with FVWGA resolution (854x480).
On this device I have played games like Gangstar Vegas on High resolution, or Batman TDKR, or Asphalt 8.. And there are no ANY lags at all..
I can't believe that you people are writing stuff like you can play Temple Run smoothly on these devices, like anything else would fail.. ccc
Benchmark is showing that this device is a little better then Google nexus 10, and little worse then Galaxy S3, and since I payed this phone only 150$ ..I would say that this is a total WIN!
This is the phone: http://www.fastcardtech.com/goods.php?u=101866&id=8611
Regards,
Emrah.

 

[FwFred]

Hello people..
This is the phone: http://www.fastcardtech.com/goods.php?u=101866&id=8611

"HDC Galaxy Note 2" :biggrin: gotta love ripoff brand names from Chinese companies :biggrin:

 

[beginner99]

Why would anyone want 4 slow cores on a phone? Please give me 1-2 fast* ones instead. What typical usages need 4 cores? Are people ripping movies on their phone?

edit: *One A15, One dual-thread Atom, or Dual A9's

fully agree if you ignore pricing. This mediatek SOC is very small and very cheap. It's just for a different market. But yeah, quad-core phone seem retarded to me. Dual-core makes some sense. single core atom seems fast enough for a smartphone. Have the RAZR I and can't complain.

 

[SPBHM]

I've used a cheap single core A9 from MT recently, and it feels decent enough for everything I tried,

 

[Starjack]

I know this is an old thread but i like to contribute to this.

Why would anyone want 4 slow cores on a phone? Please give me 1-2 fast* ones instead. What typical usages need 4 cores? Are people ripping movies on their phone?

edit: *One A15, One dual-thread Atom, or Dual A9's

I believe that the Cortex A7 is a very small CPU chip and very power efficient so i'm not convinced that they want to add more cores, hence why you see Mediatek use them in Octa core chips like MT6592. So, I might doubt that they do this just to increase performance.
I owned both an android phone and tablet that are powered by a Quad core A7 at 1.3Ghz (both from Mediatek) and they still get their job done in most real world scenarios. They both played games like Asphalt 8 and Riptide GP2 with hardly any problems. What is even more impressive is that i could play these games for longer periods without heating issues and still conserve battery life.
So i find some people here are quick to judge that such a little CPU as A7 can't still give a performance that is worth it regardless. I agree that it is not as fast as a A9, A53, A72, etc, but it still gets the job done.