- Mar 29, 2010
- 3,691
- 21
- 81
But Windows Phone and Blackberry. You sure like niche markets.
Lol yes, my current phone is a Meego OSed Nokia N9. Honestly it is the most intuitive phone I have ever used...the Swipe UI on it is just untouchable, and I'm not an app junkie so it doesn't bother me that much that there are not that many of the popular apps available for it (there is a good dev community so important stuff does come out for it).
Since Nokia killed Meego, the closest gesture based UI is BB10 (I have a Playbook and it is really nice and easy to use IMO) and possibly Jolla's Sailfish OS which is why I'm keeping my eyes on them. The only reason I would even consider WinPho is that Nokia makes some amazing phones...otherwise I wouldn't care much about it.
Oh boy it was a gem.We say AMD is mismanaged, sometime we should look at Nokia.
I honestly beilve Elop is on MS's payroll rather than Nokia's
Heheyyyy 6 times more powerful due to 6 time s more cores! 'Cause that's exactly how it works.
Heheyyyy 6 times more powerful due to 6 time s more cores! 'Cause that's exactly how it works.
A9 or A15?
Heheyyyy 6 times more powerful due to 6 time s more cores! 'Cause that's exactly how it works.
In graphics, yes, that is exactly how it works. The reason more cores don't buy you linear increases in power is because the problems don't have enough parallelism. In graphics, you fire up a shader program for each and every pixel you draw on the screen, and, with few exceptions, they can all work in parallel. So, at a reasonable resolution, you don't run into problems until you have a million SPs.
There's other factors, like memory bandwidth, texture units, ROPs, rasterizers, etc. These don't necessarily scale up along with "graphics cores".
Actually, outside of memory bandwidth they do, they do precisely that. A graphics core is a set combination of ROPs and shader units(ROP is a raster op pipeline that handles texture/raster ops). The interesting part about Wayne is that it is Kepler core versus G70 based derivatives in the older Tegra parts, it is possible nV is being rather conservative with their 6x estimate(although, real world performance could well be in line with that even if theoreticals put it at closer to 10x).
GPU "cores" do scale like that.
I think you have the GPU confused with the CPU.
In graphics, yes, that is exactly how it works. The reason more cores don't buy you linear increases in power is because the problems don't have enough parallelism. In graphics, you fire up a shader program for each and every pixel you draw on the screen, and, with few exceptions, they can all work in parallel. So, at a reasonable resolution, you don't run into problems until you have a million SPs.