iPhone 6 Leaks – Ultra Retina Screen, 2.6GHz A8 Processor, OİS (UPDATED)

[LAwLz]

And theres a proof that you won't: http://barryrountree.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/race2idle.pdf

Did you even read that yourself? It clearly shows that the more CPU bound a task is, the more it makes sense to do race-to-idle. For tasks that are not that CPU bound you shouldn't do it, but for tasks that are you should.

That is what that report says. We also have people from Intel working on the scheduler in Linux which says race-to-idle can save power (and in a lot of cases does). Yes, it isn't the best thing to do 100% of the time, but for things that are CPU bound (you know, like JS heavy websites, JIT compilation etc) then it makes sense.

What you posted is not proof that race-to-idle doesn't work. It is actually proof that it does work. I suggest you read your link yourself.

 

 

Learn to read, humans are bad multitaskers in general, many people don't like multitasking and you cant multitask on ios so having quad cores are far from relevant here. Monitoring my cpu load here on my ipad, I'm hardly getting over 50%. Texting, browsing, watching video's, FB etc that's probably what the most people do if they dont game. If I want here a smoother experience, I'd be needing more per core performance not more cores. Most IOS users dont need more cores. All of your race to idle was just one big bullshit for any ios user.

So you are a very light user. That does not mean everyone has the same requirements as you do. It's nice to see that you have at least backpedaled to "most iOS users don't need it" instead of "it's worthless" or "it doesn't work". Sure most iOS users don't need more cores. Actually, most iOS users don't need an iPad or iPhone at all. I really dislike the "most people don't need X" argument because it doesn't really make any sense. If we applied that to everything then we wouldn't even live in houses, or have cars, or computers since you don't "need" those either. They make our lives hell of a lot more enjoyable though, and so would a faster processor.

 

 

Multithreading isnt even about doing more than one thing at once, because even a single thread can even do more than one thing at a time. Having a single thread is far from being multithreaded so you clearly don't know what it is. For some reasons youre associating human multitasking with multithreading.

I am sorry, but I am having a very hard time following this sentence. Yes I know what multithreding is, you don't though since you seem to assume that pretty much everything is single threaded (the opposite is true, almost everything is multithreaded to a certain degree). You just keep backpedaling all the time. Haven't I already shown you that even my browser can use multiple cores? The apps on my devices that need that kind of performance can use 3 or 4 cores with ease. You keep assuming that I don't know what multithreading is for some reason. You also keep assuming that few programs are multithreaded, and both of these assumptions are completely wrong. I still don't understand why you called it a myth before.

 

The reason I mentioned multitasking is because that is one instance where multiple cores can be very useful. If I am running 3 programs at once (one or two background tasks, and one or two foreground programs) then each one of those don't have to share CPU resources, even if all of them are single threaded.

 

 

Atm there aren't or there a few any apps that only contain 1 thread, they all/most are containing something like dunno 20-40 meaning they can use 20-40 cores but that doesnt fucking mean you will see performance advantages when a 3rd or 4th core gets enabled. Besides the core loads, you would have no clue of how many cores an app can take advantage of performance wise. Looking now at your game screenshot, seeing 3 cores being disabled and that your first core is relaxing meaning that you won't see any improvements performance wise when you enable the 3 cores, that's why it means nothing.

Yes that is an old, outdated and light game. That's why I used it as an example to demonstrate what it looks like when cores are disabled (since you didn't think you could see that). Yes in that particular app you wouldn't see a benefit. You would get a benefit in a lot of apps though (for example in my video player and my browser).

Core load is a way of seeing how many cores an app can take advantage of. If I see all 4 cores fired up and running at 1.9GHz, and they are fully loaded, then it's obvious that the app can use 4 or more cores effectively.

 

Never said they don't.

You were heavily implying that they weren't when you said:

 

You're nothing with 8 cores if all we do is single threaded meaning you're per core performance reliant. The 5S feels much smoother than any samsungcrap when browsing (http://be.hardware.i...de-concurrentie), perfect example why octacores are nothing besides gimmicks. They might be useful for gaming but other than that its a waste.

 

 

 

Start with Firewire ... he quotes wikipedia

 

but completely and purposely ignores other parts like:

 

FYI: 

"The first specification for this link was completed in 1987." by people at Apple, BUT only "was adopted in 1995 as the IEEE 1394 standard." years later.

Ohh that's really unfair of him to do.

[Faa]

Did you even read that yourself?

First you said this:

 

 

You could not be further from the truth.

1) Better hardware in phones is needed. The only reason why people still have desktops is because phones aren't powerful enough. Better hardware won't just benefit performance either, it will also INCREASE battery life because of "race to idle". So if the iPhone gets a quad core you might actually see an increase in battery life, because it will finish tasks quicker and then go down in idle.

 

 

Then you said this:

 

A quad core can give you longer battery life. I never said it would always do so, but it can. 

Thats when you're not making sense and hardly following your own discussion anymore.

 

 

I am sorry, but I am having a very hard time following this sentence. Yes I know what multithreding is, you don't though since you seem to assume that pretty much everything is single threaded (the opposite is true, almost everything is multithreaded to a certain degree). You just keep backpedaling all the time. Haven't I already shown you that even my browser can use multiple cores? The apps on my devices that need that kind of performance can use 3 or 4 cores with ease. You keep assuming that I don't know what multithreading is for some reason. You also keep assuming that few programs are multithreaded, and both of these assumptions are completely wrong. I still don't understand why you called it a myth before.

Nope, multithreading is according to you; doing more things at once. Which is wrong because a single thread can do multiple things as well and as you know 1 thread can only be executed on one core. Multithreading is about having for each task a thread, that's when you can utilize more cores.

 

 

You were heavily implying that they weren't when you said:

Yeah you got most of the time with browsers one main thread and a bunch of others that are extremely minor barely impacting your performance that easily would be moved to the main threads core without any performance loss. This is the 2nd time saying this.

You failed to prove that your browser is taking advantage of extra cores, remember using means nothing unless theres 100% everywhere going which would translate you got 4 main threads atleast, running some benchmarks or a video in a browser which are probably plugins and not the browser itself doesnt prove your browser being like you claimed.

 

 

Core load is a way of seeing how many cores an app can take advantage of. 

This. Exactly. You still fail to understand the difference between taking advantage of x cores or can use x cores. 

 

 

If I see all 4 cores fired up and running at 1.9GHz, and they are fully loaded, then it's obvious that the app can use 4 or more cores effectively.

 

Monitoring the core load, can be an indicator of seeing how many main threads there are. If you'd see 2 cores at 90% and 2 others at 10% that would mean you got 2 main threads and a bunch of minor threads and it would only take advantage of 2 cores nothing more.

And please lets stop about your race to idle, people arent interested to have a minor chance of saving battery life with extra cores duplicated and added.

[LAwLz]

First you said this:

 

Then you said this:

Read my post carefully:

Better hardware won't just benefit performance either, it will also INCREASE battery life because of "race to idle". So if the iPhone gets a quad core you might actually see an increase in battery life, because it will finish tasks quicker and then go down in idle.

I have not changed position, like you try to make it seem like I did. I have, from the beginning of the thread, said that a quad core processor might use less power than a dual core (if it's a big.LITTLE quad core then it will almost certainly use less). This is what I have been saying over and over. You are extremely anti-quad cores for some reason, saying that if Apple added it they should die. That makes no sense since there are only benefit to having a quad core (except cost for the manufacturer). Hell, a quad core can almost perfectly emulate a dual core (just power gate the other 2 cores).

 

 

Nope, multithreading is according to you; doing more things at once. Which is wrong because a single thread can do multiple things as well and as you know 1 thread can only be executed on one core. Multithreading is about having for each task a thread, that's when you can utilize more cores.

This is just 100% straw manning. I never even implied that. You have made it very obvious that you do not understand what you are talking about since you keep making very bold (and wrong) statements, and then backpedaling like crazy.

 

 

Yeah you got most of the time with browsers one main thread and a bunch of others that are extremely minor barely impacting your performance that easily would be moved to the main threads core without any performance loss. This is the 2nd time saying this.

You failed to prove that your browser is taking advantage of extra cores, remember using means nothing unless theres 100% everywhere going which would translate you got 4 main threads atleast, running some benchmarks or a video in a browser which are probably plugins and not the browser itself doesnt prove your browser being like you claimed.

How did I fail to prove that my browser can use 4 cores? Do you not understand how programs work? You can't do all tasks in parallel, so you won't always see 100% core utilization across the board, even in some hypothetical app that is codeded flawlessly. That does not mean the program can't benefit from 4 cores though. As you can see in my screenshot, there are times where all 4 cores peak. This is when they encounter a task that can be done in parallel, and this is when you get the greatest benefit from having multiple cores. Sadly I can't get Peacekeeper working properly on my phone, but it has a segment that is specifically designed to be able to take advantage of more cores. If I could run this when I would most likely see very high core utilization on all cores. This is definite and indisputable proof that my browser can use 4 or more cores. Saying anything else is just flat out wrong wrong wrong. I don't understand why you keep referring to "main threads". Do you mean "threads that might require a lot of CPU time" when you say "main thread"? If that's what you mean then the "main thread" varies depending on the task. For example, if I open an image in the background and want to do some post processing for let's say high quality scaling on it, that will run in a separate thread (or maybe even several threads). This thread might be more CPU intense than the threads (yes that is plural) that were used when loading the website I visited, but at the time I visited the site the threads used for scaling were not in use.

Bottom line: Not everything can be done in parallel so that means you will rarely if ever get 100% core utilization in a program (not even my video player can do that as you can see), but that does not mean it doesn't benefit from having the extra cores.

 

My browser does not have any plugins by the way. As you can see I only had 1 tab open as well, and videos don't have to rely on plugins thanks to for example HTML5. I don't have to forge evidence to support my claims if that's what you were implying.

 

 

This. Exactly. You still fail to understand the difference between taking advantage of x cores or can use x cores. 

Nope I understand it very well. What you don't seem to understand is that just because some tasks can't use more cores does not mean no task can do it. All I am doing is arguing that a browser can in certain situations benefit from having more than 2 cores, which it can (and does).

 

 

Monitoring the core load, can be an indicator of seeing how many main threads there are. If you'd see 2 cores at 90% and 2 others at 10% that would mean you got 2 main threads and a bunch of minor threads and it would only take advantage of 2 cores nothing more.

Please stop misusing the term "main thread". What you mean is a "heavy thread" or "intense thread" or something along those lines. "Main thread" has a specific meaning when talking about Java applications (like Android apps). You can make a program where the main thread is the least resource intense thread of them all. Anyway enough about semantics, just because you at one point see only 2 cores with a decent amount of load does not mean that program can't benefit from having more than 2 cores at some other point during the run through.

 

 

And please lets stop about your race to idle, people arent interested to have a minor chance of saving battery life with extra cores duplicated and added.

Oh good you have stopped calling it a myth and now acknowledge that it actually works. Good, we are making progress.

So now you are saying that people don't want higher performance even if it might give them a small increase in battery life? Really?

[StingBull]

Is that "Leading Smartphone™" with no optical image stabilization the Galaxy Note 3? I can tell from experience Note 3's camera sucks indoors if you don't have the stable hands of a surgeon. But it's not just the fact that it doesn't have OIS, the image processing is weird as well.

[MG2R]

Start with Firewire ... he quotes wikipedia

 

but completely and purposely ignores other parts like:

 

FYI: 

"The first specification for this link was completed in 1987." by people at Apple, BUT only "was adopted in 1995 as the IEEE 1394 standard." years later.

 

Aha, thanks for that! Damn it, now I'm going to have to question anything he says. Damn damn damn...

Again, thanks!

[Faa]

Read my post carefully:

I have not changed position, like you try to make it seem like I did. I have, from the beginning of the thread, said that a quad core processor might use less power than a dual core (if it's a big.LITTLE quad core then it will almost certainly use less). This is what I have been saying over and over. You are extremely anti-quad cores for some reason, saying that if Apple added it they should die. That makes no sense since there are only benefit to having a quad core (except cost for the manufacturer). Hell, a quad core can almost perfectly emulate a dual core (just power gate the other 2 cores).

Oh so you said it will and in the following sentence it might. Apparently it's now: "it might" >.<. 

Now lets finish this, since you clearly said that a cpu is multithreading with a single thread should say enough about your knowledge of how threads & processes work. How the hell can you take advantage of an extra core if you gain literally nothing? Doesnt make sense at all. Performance is the only advantage you can get from an extra core. Because you saw all of your cores being used, doesnt mean it's taking advantage of them. Saying more cores will improve battery life is just flatout wrong or we all should recommend 8350's over i3's because it will race faster to idle and get a cheaper bill but apparently a 8350's idle power consumption is higher than an i3's max power consumption.

 

How did I fail to prove that my browser can use 4 cores? Do you not understand how programs work? You can't do all tasks in parallel, so you won't always see 100% core utilization across the board, 

If you would have a brain, you'd be loading a webpage and take a screenshot while its loading not running a sort of torture test which is far from realistic. Your cpu decoding a video is bad, that should be the job of the gpu thought Android was the king of performance? Your screenshots didnt prove we need a quadcore. The tasks the cpu has to process are complety different during normal usage than that benchmark, so no you didnt prove anything.

If you did that (90% on all cores), I'd admit anytime I was wrong.

 

 

Do you not understand how programs work? 

 

[Logicpaste]Do you understand how touchscreens work?[/Logicpaste]

 

 

You can't do all tasks in parallel, so you won't always see 100% core utilization across the board, 

 

You should write a book.

 

Please stop misusing the term "main thread". What you mean is a "heavy thread" or "intense thread" or something along those lines. "Main thread" has a specific meaning when talking about Java applications (like Android apps). You can make a program where the main thread is the least resource intense thread of them all. Anyway enough about semantics, just because you at one point see only 2 cores with a decent amount of load does not mean that program can't benefit from having more than 2 cores at some other point during the run through.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1469176-4K-Screen-VS-World-of-Warcraft?p=25724683&viewfull=1#post25724683

Main being in this case an adjective, a thread being in this case a noun don't immediately refer to java, get real. Nice wall of nonsense again, like you havent done anything else.

 

 

Nope I understand it very well. What you don't seem to understand is that just because some tasks can't use more cores does not mean no task can do it. All I am doing is arguing that a browser can in certain situations benefit from having more than 2 cores, which it can (and does).

No you don't, you'd only see advantage of a 2nd core if the first core is hitting its limit which you cant tell other than enabling a 2nd core to see if there are any performance improvements. A 90% hit on a core can mean its hitting its limit.

Oh good you have stopped calling it a myth and now acknowledge that it actually works. Good, we are making progress.

So now you are saying that people don't want higher performance even if it might give them a small increase in battery life? Really?

You're even misreading your own crap (refer to 1st quote) and you do it here as well. People arent interested to have x - doesnt mean x is true. You had no proper evidence it actually works besides theories that have been zero times proved in practice. 

 

[ShiverMePenguins]

I'm not entirely convinced those are accurate renderings. I have been seeing a great deal of articles lately on mac news sites that suggests the iPhone 6 will be taking design cues from the 5c (such as rounded corners and edges for the comfort aspect, of which many review sites praised the 5c for). I cannot help but feel that these renderings have harsh lines reminiscent of the 5s.

[LAwLz]

Oh so you said it will and in the following sentence it might. Apparently it's now: "it might" >.<. 

Nope I have always said a quad core might get longer battery life than a dual core. I have also said that better technology will improve battery life. I have not backpedaled, unlike you...

 

 

 

Now lets finish this, since you clearly said that a cpu is multithreading with a single thread should say enough about your knowledge of how threads & processes work.

Please link me to the post where I clearly said that. I can't find it. All I can find is posts where you say I said that (when you are making straw man arguments).

 

 

How the hell can you take advantage of an extra core if you gain literally nothing? Doesnt make sense at all. Performance is the only advantage you can get from an extra core. Because you saw all of your cores being used, doesnt mean it's taking advantage of them. Saying more cores will improve battery life is just flatout wrong or we all should recommend 8350's over i3's because it will race faster to idle and get a cheaper bill but apparently a 8350's idle power consumption is higher than an i3's max power consumption.

Now you're just being silly. The 8350 and i3 are different architectures and can therefore not be compared like that. If both had the exact same performance per core:watt ratio, as well as very optimized power gating then yes, the 8350 might be more efficient in some situations. If you don't see the flaw in your example here then I really can't help you.

 

 

If you would have a brain, you'd be loading a webpage and take a screenshot while its loading not running a sort of torture test which is far from realistic.

Why would I do that? You said that my browser was pretty much single threaded, so of course I will show it taking advantage of 4 cores. Are those situations rare? Sure they are pretty rare (or the situations where all 4 cores can be used are often just brief moments) but they are still there, and saying that they don't exist is not true. You have said words such as "literally nothing", "don't exist", "no benefit", "all other threads are extremely minor", "multicores is a mythe", "race to idle is a mythe", "cores aren't turned off" and a ton of other incorrect statements in this thread, and you just keep backpedaling more and more from your original claims with each new post.

The fact of the matter is that you are wrong. There are a lot of apps that can benefit from having more than 2 cores, and for the end consumer there are no drawbacks. Saying that a company should die if they change from a dual core to a quad core is dumb... It just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

 

Your cpu decoding a video is bad, that should be the job of the gpu thought Android was the king of performance?

You don't know enough about video to make a statement like that. I have already explained it to you but it seems like you don't read my posts anymore. My GPU can't decode 10bit H.264, and neither can yours.

I have no idea where you got "Android is king of performance" from either. It has the phones with the best hardware sure, but Android itself is not that great from a performance POV. The frequency stepping is done in software, programs are JIT compiled, everything is running inside a virtual machine... It's pretty damn bad.

 

 

Your screenshots didnt prove we need a quadcore. The tasks the cpu has to process are complety different during normal usage than that benchmark, so no you didnt prove anything.

If you did that (90% on all cores), I'd admit anytime I was wrong.

OK so now you have backpedaled from "it's not possible! Your browser can only use 2 cores efficiently!" to "...in normal situations". I swear that if I load up a very heavy website and posted a screenshot of all 4 cores being fired up you would probably say "well most people don't visit that site, show it being done on facebook instead!" or something along those lines... I can't prove you wrong if you keep moving the goalpost every time I post new evidence.

 

 

[Logicpaste]Do you understand how touchscreens work?[/Logicpaste]

I have no idea what you are implying here.

 

 

You should write a book.

Eh... Okay?

 

 

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1469176-4K-Screen-VS-World-of-Warcraft?p=25724683&viewfull=1#post25724683

Main being in this case an adjective, a thread being in this case a noun don't immediately refer to java, get real. Nice wall of nonsense again, like you havent done anything else.

First of all, linking too a post on MMO-champion is not a great source. Not saying that he is wrong, but yeah it's one of the least trustworthy sources you can have.

Read my post again. The concept of a "main thread" doesn't really make any sense in this situation. First of all, Java has something that is called a main thread, so using that term here just makes things confusing. Secondly, a lot of programs such as my browser might not put the biggest amount of load on the "main thread". You keep referring to "main thread" as "any thread that requires a lot of CPU time" and those two are not the same thing. Anyway it's just semantics.

I dislike how you just focus on that part of my post and ignores the rest of it. It's really hard to argue with someone that hits his fingers in his ear and goes "lalalala I can't hear you" when you try to do counter arguments.

 

 

No you don't, you'd only see advantage of a 2nd core if the first core is hitting its limit which you cant tell other than enabling a 2nd core to see if there are any performance improvements. A 90% hit on a core can mean its hitting its limit.

I am not sure how closely you looked at my screenshot but I can tell you that at several points in the benchmark I had two or more cores hit ~80% load and the other 1-2 cores hitting ~30% load. To me, that is pretty strong evidence that more than 2 cores can be used effectively in the browser. Wish I could get peacekeeper working properly...

 

 

 

You're even misreading your own crap (refer to 1st quote) and you do it here as well. People arent interested to have x - doesnt mean x is true. You had no proper evidence it actually works besides theories that have been zero times proved in practice. 

But it has. Like the article I linked before said, Intel has done tests and users are reporting that setting Linux's scheduler to performance can improve battery life.

Want more proof? Read the Anand article I linked. if you don't like theoretical stuff then just scroll past it to the iPhone 4S's results. It clearly shows that while the 4S has a higher peak power consumption, it still gets a longer or the same battery life (when the workload is the same).

 

This is without taking big.LITTLE into consideration, which you would have to be insane to dismiss as "just a theory".

[Whiskers]

Aha, thanks for that! Damn it, now I'm going to have to question anything he says. Damn damn damn...

Again, thanks!

I always have. Logan speaks far too much like an irrational fanboy to trust very often. He jumps to conclusions on things and justifies his reasoning with cherry picked 'evidence'... Especially in regard to consoles and Apple devices. Which is a shame as I would probably have enjoyed his content otherwise.

[Faa]

Nope I have always said a quad core might get longer battery life than a dual core. I have also said that better technology will improve battery life. I have not backpedaled, unlike you...

 

 

You could not be further from the truth.

1) Better hardware in phones is needed. The only reason why people still have desktops is because phones aren't powerful enough. Better hardware won't just benefit performance either, it will also INCREASE battery life because of "race to idle". So if the iPhone gets a quad core you might actually see an increase in battery life, because it will finish tasks quicker and then go down in idle.

In bold you said that better hardware (having more cores is better hardware) will increase battery life. Underlined text you went "it might". Maybe you should phrase your sentences better or you might have no clue what you're talking about, that's up to you.

 

 

Please link me to the post where I clearly said that. I can't find it. All I can find is posts where you say I said that (when you are making straw man arguments).

 

Asked you what multithreading was about:

You don't seem to know the definition of "multitasking" either, it means doing more than one thing at once. 

Which was wrong because a single thread can even do multiple things at once. You didnt know what multithreading was so yeah end of it.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/128015-iphone-6-leaks-%E2%80%93-ultra-retina-screen-26ghz-a8-processor-o%C4%B0s-updated/page-7#entry1711818

 

First of all, linking too a post on MMO-champion is not a great source. Not saying that he is wrong, but yeah it's one of the least trustworthy sources you can have.

First you're telling me I'm misusing it, and apparently that guy isnt wrong this time >.<

I'm pretty sure mmo-champion is a better source than this forum. Too many people spraying here complete misinformation, claiming 8350's perform better in games than i5's etc... Have only seen a few here knowing his stuff.

 

Read my post again. The concept of a "main thread" doesn't really make any sense in this situation. First of all, Java has something that is called a main thread, so using that term here just makes things confusing. Secondly, a lot of programs such as my browser might not put the biggest amount of load on the "main thread". You keep referring to "main thread" as "any thread that requires a lot of CPU time" and those two are not the same thing. Anyway it's just semantics.

 

Rofl.. Nobody asked you something about Java so shut the fuck up about Java.

 

 

I dislike how you just focus on that part of my post and ignores the rest of it. It's really hard to argue with someone that hits his fingers in his ear and goes "lalalala I can't hear you" when you try to do counter arguments.

Ofc because everything what you've said is far from relevant, you proved your claims not even once, you don't have a clue how threads & processes work, then you're lying like in the first quote and you're starting to moan about y when we're arguing about x. Your arguments are just all over the place and you write everytime a wall of text.

[Imabigmac]

 You should write a book.

between the two of you you could very well have.

[TechSage]

Gah, Apple phones look sick but I like big screens and customization

[LAwLz]

In bold you said that better hardware (having more cores is better hardware) will increase battery life. Underlined text you went "it might". Maybe you should phrase your sentences better or you might have no clue what you're talking about, that's up to you.

OK I should have phrased it better. First I was talking about hardware in general (which includes for example IPC improvements as well), and then I specifically pointed out just making it a quad core.

 

Asked you what multithreading was about:

 

Which was wrong because a single thread can even do multiple things at once. You didnt know what multithreading was so yeah end of it.

What? Reread my post please. I was talking about "multitasking" not "multithreading". I have absolutely no idea how you managed to mess up your reading comprehension so badly that you somehow managed to extract "a single core CPU can't run 2 programs at once".

I never said anything like that at all. What I said was that having multiple cores can be better for multitasking, since each program can get their own core. It was a response to your "programs only use 1-2 "main" threads (which is wrong) so having a quad core makes no difference" statement. My point with bringing up multitasking is that even if your program only can use 2 cores, you can still benefit from having a quad core if you run multiple programs. Let's assume that I got two programs and both can only use 2 cores. Program number 1 might max out both the cores it uses. On a dual core this would create a bottleneck since the other program would have to wait for CPU time. With a quad core it doesn't have to wait because that has its own 2 cores it can use freely.

That's what I said. I never said that you couldn't run 1 programs on a single core. Stop straw manning and please improve your reading comprehensions. It feels like 1/3 of this discussion has been me clarifying statements you somehow have managed to completely misread (or maybe you're doing it deliberately to set up straw man arguments).

 

First you're telling me I'm misusing it, and apparently that guy isnt wrong this time >.<

I'm pretty sure mmo-champion is a better source than this forum. Too many people spraying here complete misinformation, claiming 8350's perform better in games than i5's etc... Have only seen a few here knowing his stuff.

Well that is the first time I have ever heard anyone say "main thread" other than when talking about Java's main thread (which is not necessarily the most resource intense one). And yes you are misusing it. You are using "main thread" as a synonym for "resources intense thread". The fact that you said "main threads" is enough to show that you are misusing it (not a typo either since you did it several times and even said "one or two main threads". You mean resources heavy threads, not main threads. Anyway, it's semantics.

I definitely agree with you that there are a lot of people on this site that spread misinformation though, especially in phone threads. I remember talking to someone saying that having a quad core is useless. Can you believe that? He didn't even know what power gating was and yet he thought he was qualified to talk about the impact different hardware has on battery life. It's a real shame, right?..

 

 

Rofl.. Nobody asked you something about Java so shut the fuck up about Java.

We were talking about programs coded in Java, like my browser and video player (and Peggle).

 

 

 

Ofc because everything what you've said is far from relevant, you proved your claims not even once, you don't have a clue how threads & processes work, then you're lying like in the first quote and you're starting to moan about y when we're arguing about x. Your arguments are just all over the place and you write everytime a wall of text.

What are you talking about? I have proven my claims over and over. Hell, you have posted links that proves my claims as well (for example you posted a link saying that the more CPU bound something is, the more sense it makes to use race-to-idle, and you used that to try to say that race-to-idle is a "mythe").

You said most programs except games only use 1 core which is wrong. Even my browser can use 4 cores, and other programs I have tested can use more than 1 core.

You said that Samsung's "corecount crap" is just a bit gimmick which it is not. big.LITTLE is a very good idea and I suspect that you hadn't even heard about it before I linked it to you in this thread. If you knew about it then you wouldn't have made such an inane statement and calling it crap.

You said Moore's law meant that we would never get BF4 tier games on mobile devices (which is actually the opposite of what Moore's law says).

You said I couldn't be sure if my programs used more than 2 cores and then I showed it. You said there had been no practical tests done with race-to-idle and I linked you to one (anandtech).

You said I couldn't check if my cores were completely turned off and I linked you an image clearly showing when they are off.

You said that there is no such thing as race to idle and that "You'd enter a sleep state much faster with core parking than your stupid example" which is just hilarious.

You said quad cores didn't exist (by saying quad cores is a myth) and I don't even think I need to prove that one.

You said I should use my GPU for decoding video even though I specifically said why I didn't use it, and explained why I couldn't use it.

You said that iOS's browser was smoother than Samsung's and I explained why you think it is (uses speed tricks like not telling you scroll that quickly).

 

I am not really sure how many other claims you have made that I have disproved. My main argument through the entire thread is that quad cores are not useless on phones like you said. They can have big benefits and Apple shouldn't "deserve to die" for making their next phone a quad core. It makes no sense to think worse of a company if they give you higher performance with no drawbacks.

 

Yeah sorry about the walls of text but I need a lot of room to explain why your posts are wrong. Oh and please stop with the straw man arguments. I have not lied and I have not backpedaled. I have said the same thing ever since my first post. You on the other hand have resorted to straw manning and moving the goalpost. You make one claim, I disprove it, you slightly modify your other claim and demand new evidence (aka moving the goal post), or deliberately misinterprets what I said and then argues against that (aka straw manning).

 

Anyway I won't reply to you again.

"You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into"

Continue to believe that quad cores is evil and don't offer any benefits if you want. I will be over here enjoying my quad core, and my programs that benefit from having extra cores.

[MG2R]

"You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into"

Hmmmm, must remember that quote. You don't happen to know who said it first, per chance?

[LAwLz]

Hmmmm, must remember that quote. You don't happen to know who said it first, per chance?

Apparently it's from Jonathan Swift, but he said it like this:

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"

And then "Ben Goldacre" modified it.