09-20-10 03:34 PM
310 ... 45678 ...
tools
  1. Roo Zilla's Avatar
    You cant say it needs more power! Thats a generalization, open your mind and think before you type dude! Every aspect of a Device and its OS is designed to run on a specific processor speed.. Example you have 2.0Ghz and 1.8Ghz and 1Ghz processors in computers.. The stuff you find on a 2.0Ghz you will not on a 1Ghz or 1.8Ghz! This is why Android for example runs a 1Ghz processor and not a 1.5Ghz or 1.8Ghz because the device wasnt designed for it! DUH!
    Oh wow. This is so bizarre I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm thinking that you believe that there's different versions of software for each processor speed, like a different version of Windows 7 for each CPU speed. If that's what you believe, then you really don't know how computers, or electronics in general, work.

    BTW, Android will run perfectly fine on a 1.5Ghz or 1.8Ghz, or even a 10Ghz whenever they make one. Software scales up very nicely.
    08-04-10 11:59 PM
  2. anon3396357's Avatar
    That guy has absolutely no clue.

    Anyway, so do most people. I mentioned before that RIM must have had a reason for sticking to the Marvell PXA930 - it is not like they were completely oblivious to the Cortex-A8s and Snapdragons made available to them.

    Choosing a CPU for a smartphone is much more than wanting higher clock speeds. The 9800 is touted to be a world phone, right? That's one consideration already.

    I also believe that because internal functions are hardwired into smartphone CPUs, the OS is affected somehow. That is why you cannot directly compare a smartphone CPU to a PC CPU.
    08-05-10 12:25 AM
  3. Roo Zilla's Avatar
    That guy has absolutely no clue.

    Anyway, so do most people. I mentioned before that RIM must have had a reason for sticking to the Marvell PXA930 - it is not like they were completely oblivious to the Cortex-A8s and Snapdragons made available to them.
    It's to save money and to help marketing. They could have easily selected the following combination:

    Cortex-A8 underclocked to 333Mhz plus a PowerVR SGX545 GPU.

    This combination would probably have given the 9800 better performance and better battery life, especially if XScale is still being made on a 90nm process. This combination might be like $5 more expensive per unit though. Also, trying to get people to buy into a 333Mhz processor in 2010 is pretty tough.
    08-05-10 12:33 AM
  4. yeedub's Avatar
    That guy has absolutely no clue.

    Anyway, so do most people. I mentioned before that RIM must have had a reason for sticking to the Marvell PXA930 - it is not like they were completely oblivious to the Cortex-A8s and Snapdragons made available to them.

    Choosing a CPU for a smartphone is much more than wanting higher clock speeds. The 9800 is touted to be a world phone, right? That's one consideration already.

    I also believe that because internal functions are hardwired into smartphone CPUs, the OS is affected somehow. That is why you cannot directly compare a smartphone CPU to a PC CPU.
    I think they did this to save money and increase their profits, that is all. They were simply hoping to use up their existing stock of surplus 9000 and 9700 parts to increase their margins. I'm sure the unexpected popularity of Android and iPhone undoubtedly caused them to order way more parts than they ended up selling and this 9800 is a good stop gap to clear the warehouse.

    Really no benefit to the older chips at all. Its slower, and I dont think they save much battery life because its built on an archaic 90nm process. New Cortex chips are based on a 65nm process which results in faster clock rates at a lower voltage.

    Maybe once RIM realizes that we expect more from them, they will step up to the plate with a refreshed model using *MODERN* components.

    2008 called, they want their 624 mhz XScale chips back
    08-05-10 12:34 AM
  5. anon3396357's Avatar
    I agree. It is pretty misleading for Kevin to say:

    That same CPU speed in the Torch delivers a mainly snappy BlackBerry 6 user experience. More MHz typically means worse battery life, so from the perspective of a mobile user the ideal situation is really to have the minimum amount of MHz that deliver a satisfactory level of performance
    A CPU with a smaller manufacturing process and underclocked, is going to be more power efficient.

    It just perplexes me that RIM is trying to clear stock on their flagship device which has been marketed so boldly

    However, do you think there's hope for a different family to be used for LTE/4G devices? I'm slightly more optimistic here.
    08-05-10 12:59 AM
  6. chris2k5's Avatar
    I have a friend who is a manager at an AT&T store and they had a 9800 I could play with in today.

    Not impressed at all.

    The browser is skill buggy or laggy. I bet you this is due to the processor. Going from app to app is quite a chore as well. And the screen looked so pixelated and small compared to the iPhone or the Samsung Captivate they had in stock.

    I was really rooting for this phone and wanted to buy it but now I am reconsidering. Just underpowered and worst of all:

    It is $199 - I can get so many other phones with newer technology. iPhone 4? Samsung Captivate? I can switch to Verizon and get a Droid Incredible? Droid X?

    What is even worse is my friend who has the original Droid from Verizon was with me and the smoothness on that 1 year old Droid is far superior.

    This is really sad that RIM dropped the ball on this one I think. I am such a fanboy for them and I stan for them til the end but I can't this time.
    08-05-10 01:13 AM
  7. darkmanx2g's Avatar
    I'm digging the 9800 but this is TYPICAL Rim. They purposely mildly upgrade their devices to sell a new device 6 months later and add a little bit more memory but keeping the same components. Its been working the past 3 years because

    1. apple never made a physical keyboard and entered enterprise.
    2. Android didn't exist till fall 08.
    3. Nokia and Palm were dying.

    With Android and Apple in the forefront pushing the smartphone technology RIMs strategy will in time bury them. A lot of people say that they are too big to fail but Palm and Windows mobile were pretty big too. Not to mention Nokia is quickly losing world marketshare.

    I'm sad to say I am the many crackberry addicts to jump ship And go android. The whole web experience is Just so much better outside of blackberry. The innovative "helpful" apps. Not fart apps that the typical blackberry fanboy will say. Just take a look at the Engadget app. Apple and Android gives you the full experience. The blackberry app is Just meh. At least We tried kind of deal.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by darkmanx2g; 08-05-10 at 01:31 AM.
    08-05-10 01:28 AM
  8. Roo Zilla's Avatar

    However, do you think there's hope for a different family to be used for LTE/4G devices? I'm slightly more optimistic here.
    The Storm line has the best potential to upgrade to more modern CPUs. The Storm actually used a Frankenchip of some sort, but the main one used is a A11 core, which is a generation newer than XScale. I would be disappointed if the next version didn't ship with a Cortex-A8. The reason I say this is because CDMA SoC have to be purchased from Qualcomm, and they might force RIM to buy it that way by not making anything else.
    08-05-10 01:31 AM
  9. anon3396357's Avatar
    That was what I was thinking too. But I was hoping for Coretex-A9s
    08-05-10 01:45 AM
  10. chris2k5's Avatar
    All RIM has to do:

    -Take the Storm and remove the Sure Press
    -Make screen go from 3.2" to 3.5" at LEAST
    -Put in OS 6
    -Put in new processor/hardware

    ALL they had to do.
    08-05-10 01:46 AM
  11. anon3396357's Avatar
    Doubt that would be possible. If you want a pure touch screen phone you would have to look else where.

    There's a reason for SurePress, and the keypad for 9800.
    08-05-10 01:51 AM
  12. chris2k5's Avatar
    Doubt that would be possible. If you want a pure touch screen phone you would have to look else where.

    There's a reason for SurePress, and the keypad for 9800.
    Kind of sad that RIM just won't give up on that stuff. It was easy to type without SurePress for sure.

    The 9800's horizontal keyboard worked fine considering it's small size. I wouldn't mind that experience on a BB.
    08-05-10 01:52 AM
  13. sivan's Avatar
    Well, these devices should be seen as packages with trade-offs. It's hard to know why RIM chose this, but here are a few possible reasons.

    1. It lets RIM bring out an updated OS with most of the technical work on low hanging fruit like the homescreen and social feeds
    2. A higher resolution screen might require a GPU and a scalable UI layer. Big hardware and software changes. It's much easier for RIM to work on areas that let it keep existing hardware platform
    3. A slide out keyboard makes the device thicker, so keeping it small means a smaller battery, which in turn means a slower CPU.
    4. Even an underclocked CPU may mean a different chipset and deeper work in the OS
    5. Maybe RIM is stubbornly sticking to a multiyear hardware roadmap and it just happens that this is what's out when OS 6 is ready to ship


    With all that said, looking at the videos, some of the worst lag occurs when popup menus or drop downs are rendered. And for a fraction of a second you could see it in the process of rendering. This painfully reminds me of my Palm Pre, where everything was rendered in HTML. It's possible that lots of the sleeker panels and popups are rendered using webKit throughout the OS. If that's the case, those lags will be a fact of life with OS6 going forward.
    08-05-10 02:30 AM
  14. YourMobileGuru's Avatar
    Why the heck is RIM coming out with a new OS but keeping the same processor? This issue bothers me because no matter how well the OS looks, the darn phone is still slow. Its like putting new shinny RIMs on a Geo Metro and expecting to go fast. The engine is what matters! What's up with that?
    I just used one at the announcement here in NYC and it is far from SLOW.
    I don't find the 624mhz processor to be slow. not sure what my 9000 has but it's fast enough. I have no problems.
    For the way Blackberrys handle data and the OS, the processor is capable of running things smoothly. I am probably sure you know how efficient blackberrys are with data (said to be 10 to 1 ratio) to iphone for instance, then no need for a 1ghz processor.
    sigh.....i understand what the op means. 624mghz is sad, especially when some competitors are switching to dual core phones soon. hope it does not affect the browser when i have multiple tabs open
    Yes 624MHZ is under current phones launching but it depends on the OS. My former Droid had a down throttled 600MHZ but by far the fastest phone I had used. Now my Droid X with a 1GHZ OMAP is incredibly fast. Hopefully OS 6 is all that people say to help RIM. Lets also hope they do not put it on devices that can't support it via RAM. So far that appears to be the case unlike 5.0
    But a valid point - 624 might be just fine to run it, but if they have faster technology available, why not put in the latest and greatest processor they can? Any why only 512MB? I'd much rather have 2-4GB memory for the OS than 4GB on-device storage. I don't think I've ever used more than a couple megs for on-device.
    a simple equation...

    624mhz+1300ma battery = x hours of usage
    1000mhz+1300ma battery = y hours of usage..

    x > y .. by a long stretch!

    Id rather my BB worked for my whole business day, doing everything i want to do on it, than have to keep searching for a power outlet every couple of hours, or carry a phone the size of a brick around.
    624MHz is not a joke. The Droid and the Pre run around those speeds, they are a year old though. The joke is that it's probably the same ARM11 based (I'm assuming) processor the original Bold 9000 used.

    All of these 1GHz phones coming out now are Coretex A8 based. A Cortex A8 is probably close to 50% faster than an ARM11 at the same clockspeed. So not only are all these high end Android phones running at 1GHz, they're getting a lot more done per MHz than what's in the 9800 and every modern Blackberry.

    Check out this article from Anandtech, probably the best comparison of ARM11 to a Coretex A8, a comparison of the iPhone 3G to the 3GS
    Understanding the iPhone 3GS - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

    There are rumors of 1.5 and 2GHz Android phones by the end of this year, and pretty soon things will be running Cortex A9's which are a huge jump from an A8. The Tegra 2 has a dual core Coretex A9 running up to 1.5GHz...

    But no, it's fine that the 9800, the new flagship Blackberry with the new OS that will bring excitement back to the brand is running a processor from 2002...
    Two words for all of the haters out there "battery life".

    A Blackberry will get anyhere from one (easily) to three (depending on use) days of battery life no problem. Go over to Android Central and see for yourself, complaints galore about battery life. Users spending another $50-70 for an extended life battery just to get a day of heavy use out of the phone, while we all chug along no problem with our BB's on the stock battrey. What good is a zippy phone if the battery is dead?

    Higher processor generally = zippier experience

    but higher processor speed definitely = lower battery life

    That's just the way it is.

    Less zippy does NOT = slow. It just means less zippy. Torch seems fine to me.

    As much as RIM is going for the consumer market, they know full well that their bread and butter is, and will be for the foreseeable future, the business user and business users demand a device that just works, works well, and does not need to be recharged several times a day if you actually use it.

    And FYI I have a Motorola Droid and a Droid Incredible, in addition to my Bold and Storm so I speak from first hand experience here. Yesterday for example when I got home my DInc was at 33% battery life while my Bold was at 87% (moderate usage).
    08-05-10 03:46 AM
  15. anon3396357's Avatar
    but higher processor speed definitely = lower battery life
    Not necessarily. I believe some of us have gone through this a page ago, perhaps take some time to read more about how CPUs work? Otherwise it'll just seem like you're regurgitating "facts" which are really just not.
    08-05-10 04:13 AM
  16. YourMobileGuru's Avatar
    Not necessarily. I believe some of us have gone through this a page ago, perhaps take some time to read more about how CPUs work? Otherwise it'll just seem like you're regurgitating "facts" which are really just not.
    I am well aware that there are differences in the various processor's architectures. I'm not a newbie. But that's only part of the equation. It's not just about how the processor works, it's how much the processor eats up the battery, and it would be great of these new phones came with 2200 mAh batteries, but they don't. You're luck to get a 1500 mAh battery out of them due to cost, and the powerhouse DInc came with a measly 1300 mAh.

    And my original point still stands. With my Bold (with a 1450 mAh battery and a 624 or so mhz processor) I get up to 3 days of batter. The Inedible (with a 1Ghz processor and the stock 1300 mAh battery does not last the day (with moderate use) and with an alternate 1500 mAh battery it barely lasts the day. Can you imagine how bad it would be if they phone came with a processor other than he Snapdragon which idles at a lower speed?

    Argue all you want about tech and theoretical benchmarks but these are real world facts and a quick search over on Android Central will find them to be fairly typical.

    I realize it has become cool to bash Blackberry lately, but where it counts to the user who needs the phone to just work, BB is still the king and the competition has a LOT of maturing to do before they will top them.
    08-05-10 04:29 AM
  17. anon3396357's Avatar
    I am well aware that there are differences in the various processor's architectures. I'm not a newbie. But that's only part of the equation. It's not just about how the processor works, it's how much the processor eats up the battery, and it would be great of these new phones came with 2200 mAh batteries, but they don't. You're luck to get a 1500 mAh battery out of them due to cost, and the powerhouse DInc came with a measly 1300 mAh.

    And my original point still stands. With my Bold (with a 1450 mAh battery and a 624 or so mhz processor) I get up to 3 days of batter. The Inedible (with a 1Ghz processor and the stock 1300 mAh battery does not last the day (with moderate use) and with an alternate 1500 mAh battery it barely lasts the day. Can you imagine how bad it would be if they phone came with a processor other than he Snapdragon which idles at a lower speed?

    Argue all you want about tech and theoretical benchmarks but these are real world facts and a quick search over on Android Central will find them to be fairly typical.

    I realize it has become cool to bash Blackberry lately, but where it counts to the user who needs the phone to just work, BB is still the king and the competition has a LOT of maturing to do before they will top them.
    First of all, how are the 2 (which I've bolded) "how"s not related?

    You are too quick to defend RIM as well.

    I agree that the Incredible eats up battery life. I also agree that there are plenty of real world facts that prove it. But why? 480 x 800 pixels AMOLED. Touch screen. On top of that, power hungry Android OS.

    The Torch does not have all these. Just keep everything the same, and change to a more power efficient CPU and keep the clock speed at 600mhz.

    You have yet to use a 9800. As of now, it's the same CPU as the Bold 9700, but larger screen (and a touch screen at that) and a smaller battery. Sorry, but logically, the battery life will not be fantastic.
    Last edited by Derwent Graphite; 08-05-10 at 05:03 AM. Reason: Just want to add that I've not used the 9800 as well, but that does not detract from my point.
    08-05-10 05:02 AM
  18. chris2k5's Avatar
    I'd rather have my battery life be chewed up than wait for my apps and browser to react. Time is life and can't be recharged....The battery can be.

    Pinch to zoom on the 9800 from my hands on experience was quite painful. It screams lag and quite frankly when it wasn't lagging, it wasn't smooth.
    08-05-10 06:09 AM
  19. jblack023's Avatar
    I don't get some of you BB fanboys. RIM throws crap (the Torch 9800) at you and you smile and take it straight in the face. I say throw this garbage back at RIM and demand better. We grew to love RIM for a reason and it is not b/c of lackluster devices. All other platforms aside, I believe RIM can do much better than what they are showing at the present.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-05-10 07:27 AM
  20. noized77's Avatar
    If RIM wants to put out an outdated product, at least drop the damn price instead of having us pay for about the same prices as those android with advanced technology. That's like selling a honda civic with a price of a high end Mercedez. Wonder why a lot of people are outraged. I wouldn't pay no more then $120 on a two year contract for this phone.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by noized77; 08-05-10 at 08:42 AM.
    08-05-10 08:38 AM
  21. shane579's Avatar
    Wouldn't a larger processor cause the bb to have less of a battery life? Maybe that is why they stuck with the smaller one that runs efficiently? Would anyone agree?
    08-05-10 08:59 AM
  22. dfairlite's Avatar
    Ok the people on here saying that battery life and processor speed are not directly correlated are almost correct. when the phone is sitting idle it makes very little difference. but when you "wake up" the phone and start using, yes it will make for poorer battery life unless the processor is throttled back. (and if it's throttled back then whats the point of the faster processor your so obsessed with?) there is a reason they throttle the speed of a processor in a laptop and that is .... drum roll .... BATTERY LIFE!
    08-05-10 09:10 AM
  23. anon3396357's Avatar
    Wouldn't a larger processor cause the bb to have less of a battery life? Maybe that is why they stuck with the smaller one that runs efficiently? Would anyone agree?
    No. Answers on Page 9 and 10 of this thread.
    08-05-10 09:11 AM
  24. Roo Zilla's Avatar
    It's not just about how the processor works, it's how much the processor eats up the battery, and it would be great of these new phones came with 2200 mAh batteries, but they don't. You're luck to get a 1500 mAh battery out of them due to cost, and the powerhouse DInc came with a measly 1300 mAh.
    There's a couple of things you're not really grasping. How a processor works is intimately tied to it's power consumption, but technology is ever moving forward and nowadays, you get more for less. There are options out there that can accomplish both, increase CPU power AND increase battery life. It's just disappointing that RIM decided to not avail themselves of these other options. For a PC analogy, the Atom CPU available in netbooks is usually clocked at 1.6Ghz. If you compare that to a 1.6Ghz Pentium 4, it will do more per clock cycle and use like a tenth of the power. The XScale CPU used in the 9800 is about 4 years old now. 4 years in the microprocessor world is the difference between i7 and Pentium 4. The i7 is vastly more powerful at the same clock speed while using a lot less power, like half or something. Imagine what people would say if Dell came out with a new notebook and stuck a Pentium 4 in it. They would be raked over the coals and rightly so. I stated before and I believe it. RIM took the road they did so they can save about $5 per SoC.

    They tell everybody it's a 624Mhz processor, but neglect to tell anybody they're using tech from 2 generations ago. They want you to say and think, "it's ok, it's just as fast as the original Droid or the iPhone 3GS" Nothing could be further from the truth. The Droid/3GS CPU is probably somewhere in the range of 70%-100% more powerful, but RIM doesn't want you to know that. They'll say 624Mhz, but they won't say 624Mhz XScale processor from 4 years back which is a little better than the one found in a Nintendo DS and a generation behind the one in the ORIGINAL iPhone. The CPU performance of an XScale 624Mhz is probably comparable to the 400Mhz A11 core found in the ORIGINAL iPhone.

    Also, the argument that a 1500mAh battery is a cost constraint is really ridiculous. The difference in cost between a 1500mAh battery and a 1300mAh one is literally pennies, if you're buying them in the millions. The most likely reason is a physical constraint limited by the form factor they chose. Another possible reason is they had a huge stock of them left over from before and didn't want them to go to waste. Li-Ion has a seriously short shelf life compared to other battery formulas. You'll automatically lose about 20% of capacity in a year, no matter what you do. If they did choose the smaller battery save on cost, it's a bit disappointing.

    Of course all these factors add up if you're hoping to sell millions of units. A increase in $5 is $5 million per million. For the same reason they included a 4GB card and not a larger one, save a couple of bucks on cost, which can add up to easily be $50-100 million in a year.

    BTW, the battery life claims on the 9800 are significantly less than what is claimed by the iPhone 4. Although the processor is slow, it's also made on an older manufacturing process which requires higher voltage. I suspect the new OS and it's feature set has a higher power requirement. I wouldn't expect the same kind of battery life you are used to in previous Blackberries.
    Last edited by Roo Zilla; 08-05-10 at 10:40 AM.
    08-05-10 09:34 AM
  25. Roo Zilla's Avatar
    Ok the people on here saying that battery life and processor speed are not directly correlated are almost correct. when the phone is sitting idle it makes very little difference. but when you "wake up" the phone and start using, yes it will make for poorer battery life unless the processor is throttled back. (and if it's throttled back then whats the point of the faster processor your so obsessed with?) there is a reason they throttle the speed of a processor in a laptop and that is .... drum roll .... BATTERY LIFE!
    Knowing a little bit about how processors work and not understanding the fundamentals and talking about it really doesn't help your cause.

    CPUs DO NOT THROTTLE BACK unless there is a thermal crisis. Good Lord, there is not a CPU in the world that will throttle back unless it has to. Odds are, you've never even seen a CPU throttle back. The only situation I've seen it happen is when the heatsink/fan has fallen off somehow.

    What modern CPUs do is two fold. First, they step up. Since the introduction of the Pentium 2, engineers figured out how to make CPUs run at lower speeds until the OS calls for more speed. Basically, a CPU will run at it's lower speed until it needs to. Intel CPUs will typically clock up in either 100Mhz or 133Mhz increments. A typical computer rarely runs at it's maximum speed. Normal use will probably have the CPU run it's maximum speed less than 1% of the time. If you want to see it run full bore all the time, install something like Folding@Home or Prime95 or Seti@Home. Those programs will run the CPU at 100% until you close them. Listen as the fans in your PC all turn up and watch your electric bills go sky high.

    The second part is the idle thread that all modern OSes utilize, even mobile ones. The idle thread basically stops internal CPU operations until a request comes along. To see it, look at the task manager on your Windows PC under "Processes." There you'll see something called "System Idle Process" which will be taking up the bulk of your CPU cycles. What it does is send halt commands to internal CPU components to save power. The original intent of this wasn't to actually save electricity. It was to keep CPUs from overheating, which they were prone to do before the use of large heatsinks and fans.

    BTW, they don't throttle back the CPU on a laptop. I don't know where you got that idea. If you get a notebook with a 3.0Ghz CPU and a desktop with the same model 3.0Ghz CPU, they will perform the same, and use the same amount of power, as long as you have the same power settings for both in the OS.
    Last edited by Roo Zilla; 08-05-10 at 10:15 AM.
    08-05-10 09:55 AM
310 ... 45678 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD