Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nvidia Tegra 4 Benchmark Results

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Cellphones 42

adeelarshad82 writes "Needless to say, the march of processor speeds always continues. However, Nvidia Tegra 4's benchmark results are off the charts. Comparing the results against several other phones, it was evident that Tegra 4 will make for the fastest mobile phones yet. For instance when benchmarked against iPhone 5, results showed 1640 on Geekbench and 27 fps on GLBenchmark's Egypt HD offscreen benchmark. Whereas the Tegra 4 scores 4148 on Geekbench and 57 fps on the Egypt HD. Of course, the competition isn't standing still, either. Qualcomm is countering the Tegra 4 with its Snapdragon 800, which the company claims is even faster than the Tegra 4. And at the same time Samsung is readying the Exynos 5 Octa."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why compare against the iPhone? (0, Troll)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43002961)

Nobody cares about iPhone. Compare against recent hardware. Lenovo K900 for instance.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43002993)

If with nobody you mean mostly everybody but you, then yes, you are right.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (0)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003043)

Everybody but me only cares about AAPL. I'm the Macdork. I care about awesome Apple products, not their stupid stock price. iPhone is not an awesome product.

Comparing the staying power ... (4, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003365)

It's tempting to compare the speed of GPU/CPU on the smartphone, but as we all know, most of the apps out there have yet to tap out the power of quad-core CPU/GPU

On the other hand, what really counts is the staying power, ie., how long the battery can last

You can have the fastest phone there is, if it won't give the user hours and hours of usage without a recharging, that phone is next to useless

My suggestion, hence, is that next time they want to compare how good such-and-such phone is, or how fast this phone versus that, please include how long can one single full-charge of the battery can power at the top-most speed rating

Thank you !!

Re:Comparing the staying power ... (2)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003453)

Agreed. If benchmarks were all that mattered, we'd have i7s in our phones :D Obviously we don't. Efficiency matters. [tomshardware.com] Hence one reason why I mentioned K900. Terga 4 may be great, but not for a phone if it isn't efficient.

Re:Comparing the staying power ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43003631)

i7's would not perform well at all in a phone, since it would throttle way down to stop overheating. I don't mind charging a phone every 4 hours if it performs well and doesn't get hot when talking to someone for an hour.

Re:Comparing the staying power ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43005409)

I don't mind charging a phone every 4 hours

Luxury! I charge my phone non-stop and I like it!

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (1)

stooo (2202012) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004227)

>> AAPL.... I care about.... not their stupid stock price
Yeah, it seems you don't care abouit stock at all... so why do you say "AAPL" ??? :))

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43006509)

+1 "Asked what we were all thinking"

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43003061)

When providing a point of comparison, choose one which the largest number of people will have had experience with.

I didn't even know Lenovo made phones.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (1)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003209)

When providing a point of comparison, choose one which the largest number of people will have had experience with.

I didn't even know Lenovo made phones.

I didn't even know Finland made an OS :P This is news for nerds, or at least, it used to be.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43003309)

How about the Tegra 3 [bestofmicro.com] in the Nexus 7? I see 63 fps. The Tegra 4 better use far less power. This shows that the Nexus 7 makes a good developer platform since the performance is almost identical to future phones. Here's the full article [tomshardware.com] .

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (1)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003387)

I think it's 57fps at 1080 res. Terga 4 has a 72 core gpu. And yeah, I'm interested in the battery life too.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43003229)

No one cares about the #1 and #2 highest selling phones in the world last quarter??

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (0)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003303)

No one cares about the #1 and #2 highest selling phones in the world last quarter??

The Windows camp used to make the same argument about Windows95. It was a lame counterpoint then. It's still a lame counterpoint now.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003515)

No one cares about the #1 and #2 highest selling phones in the world last quarter??

The Windows camp used to make the same argument about Windows95. It was a lame counterpoint then. It's still a lame counterpoint now.

And Windows is still, by a wide margin, the most used desktop operating system in the world. Sounds like people cared about Windows 15 years ago and still do today.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003841)

And how many of those people chose Windows versus had it installed by the OEM and didn't know how to switch? I'm not really sure that people care so much as they don't care enough to switch.

Re:Why compare against the iPhone? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year ago | (#43004899)

Apple could have chosen to release OS X to OEM's too. I'm not saying they should have, but they could have.

Useful desktop applicatoins? (3, Interesting)

suprcvic (684521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003295)

Could these recent mobile phone processors be adapted to the desktop?

Re:Useful desktop applicatoins? (2)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003343)

I have Ubuntu installed on my phone. [google.com] I'm looking forward to this year's faster processors.

Re:Useful desktop applicatoins? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003483)

Step one, buy phone with bluetooth and HDMI output.

Step two, there is no step two, you've got a destop with a mobile phone processor.

Re:Useful desktop applicatoins? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003491)

There are plenty of Android keys. No SATA, but USB for all the rest.

Cortex A15 processors in the Samsung Chromebook (4, Informative)

IYagami (136831) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003541)

Could these recent mobile phone processors be adapted to the desktop?

You can find Cortex A15 processors in the Samsung Chromebook. According to anandtech ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/samsung-chromebook-xe303-review-testing-arms-cortex-a15/6 [anandtech.com] ):

"The Cortex A15 is fast. Across the board we're seeing a 40 - 65% increase in performance over a dual-core Atom. Although it's not clear how performance will be impacted as companies work to stick Cortex A15 based SoCs in smartphones with tighter power/thermal budgets, in notebooks (and perhaps even tablets) the Cortex A15 looks capable of delivering a good 1 - 2 generation boost over Intel's original Atom core.

The IE10 browser tests tend to agree with our JavaScript performance tests, although the CSS Maze Solver benchmark shows a huge advantage for ARM over Intel's Atom here."

Ah, benchmarking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43003393)

Most benchmarking stories follow the exact same pattern: "New top-of-the-line product slightly better than last top-of-the-line product."
I watched GPU leapfrog, I remember when there was CPU leapfrog, and now a whole lot of SoC leapfrog.

The real news would be if a new top-of-the-line product was a complete and utter failure. Regardless, nice trinket Nvidia, enjoy the crown for a few weeks.

Is it useful at all ? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003485)

Hasn't tablet performance been "good enough" for a while now ? I know there are a few that use tablets for FPS gaming or content creation, but that's probably around 10% of the buyers ? The rest of us are more interested in creature comforts (good screen, good sound, reliability...), because running a browser, email, and facebook, even office apps, really doesn't take that much ?

Re:Is it useful at all ? (2)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003989)

Nonsense. You can never have too much processing power. It would definately be nice on tablets, or a next-gen Raspberry Pi. Or low power desktop computers. My TV has a CPU that is barely adequate for what it does. I'd love to see the netflix app really run smoothly.

But what I really want for my phone is better battery life. I'm completely happy with the performance of everything I do on my phone. I just miss the good old days when my flip phone could go 10 days on a charge.

if you use a smartphone like a flip phone (1)

Chirs (87576) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004319)

and only ever use it to text and make phone calls with no data plan, then it actually has pretty decent battery life. My dad has an LG Optimus L7 with no data plan. Using it for just voice/text it easily goes for multiple days on a charge.

The problem is that typically we do way more on a smartphone than we used to on feature phones, then we moan about how the battery doesn't last.

Think about it...part of the benefits of a smartphone is that you can do push email, RSS feeds, location-based reminders, mapping, etc. All this stuff takes extra radio/cpu power (and hence drains the battery). And that nice big screen is a huge battery hog.

One word: Javascript (1)

swb (14022) | about a year and a half ago | (#43003997)

So many sites are so Javascript heavy that it only takes about 3 months after the release of whatever the latest iPad is for it to start feeling slower.

It almost feels like the site developers were like "finally, more CPU, I can throw more JS into iPad web sessions."

When using a site like NYTimes.Com and writing a comment to a story was almost undoable on the iPad 1 due to massive lag between keystroke entry and the letter showing on the screen. When I upgraded to the 3 it was usable, but less so if I was using the onsceen keyboard instead of a bluetooth keyboard.

Lately it seems to be getting slower, so I can only assume it's the level of Jscript on the site doing it as they bias towards iPad 4 and mini.

Re:Is it useful at all ? (1)

mrjimorg (557309) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004127)

When I worked for Nvidia I remember when Jensen came and visited our site. While he was there, he spoke to everyone at our site and he said something that I will never forget. It went something like this: "People don't buy processors. They don't even buy computers. They buy solutions to their problems. You can't sell to people based on stats- you have to show them what they will get if they buy your product." Although many of the websites that discuss video cards live and die by statistics, when you look at Nvidia marketing it is usually all about "Look at this. This is what our product can do". Relating this to the new processor, they need to bring out the demos that show a system using this doing something awesome, and really show us what we've been missing. Until then, who cares how fast it is when people are using these to read their email.

Re:Is it useful at all ? (2)

Kelbear (870538) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004359)

For iOS, yes, non-gaming performance is just fine. Navigating and scrolling is perfectly smooth. In Android, there's still some stutter, but small enough to be merely a visual distraction rather than a performance issue.

In gaming performance, Tegra 3 is impressive, allowing graphics comparable to budget titles on today's console. The main problem with mobile games isn't being throttled by hardware, they're being throttled by their pay model. They can make a good game, but since they need to make money by constantly badgering you for money, they engineer game balance to make the experience garbage unless you're feeding it money regularly.

I'd rather just pay money up front and get a well balanced game, but that's just not the market we have today. I'm happy when I find games that don't sink to this level, but the overwhelming majority are glorified vending machines where the only way to get something out of the game is to keep feeding more money in. The kinds of games we see are still far behind the days of NES and SNES because of this pay model handicap on their design. The hardware certainly isn't holding them back in this regard.

But this pay model is dominant because that's what people want. I guess the place this would need to be fixed is in the hearts of the buyers.

Re:Is it useful at all ? (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year ago | (#43005255)

I have moved quite a lot of my gaming to my tablet.

On Friday my company got a new beamer(after the old low-res, knackered one suffered an "accident"). First thing I did was hook up my tablet and test how good the refresh rates were. As it so happens I always have a PS3 controller with me(I use it to control my presentations I give with my tablet). That weird coincidence led to one of our sales reps to beat my times at Riptide GP. Sure, graphics wise tablets can't beat a full blown PC. It may take some time until they can play the likes of Skyrim with high-res textures. But neither can the current console generation.

People have forgotten how games work. The likes of Mad TV, Populous, Master of Magic, Elite, Turrican, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper... never needed as much graphics power yet they they are perfectly playable on a tablet. And they are a lot of fun. I played Day of the Tentacle on my Nokia Symbian smartphone in 2007 for crying out loud!

Paper tiger (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43003791)

So what? The Tegra has always had impressive benchmarks yet they consistently fail to impress when in an actual product. Is this one finally something more than a paper tiger?

Why compare to iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43003861)

Why compare it to an iPhone 5 which isn't the most powerful smartphone out there?

This is not surprising or Informative (4, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004023)

There are 2 different "Tegra4" chips. The Tegra4i is the only one that will ever end up in your smartphone, and it only includes Cortex A9 derived CPU cores and a GPU that, while quite good, includes far few processing units than the big-brother Tegra 4.

So basically: Of course the full-blown Tegra 4 beats smartphone chips. Guess what: So does Haswell, but you won't be seeing Haswell in smartphones either. There's a price to all that performance and Nvidia is targeting the heavy-weight version of Tegra 4 at tablets because the power draw won't fly in a smaller smartphone platform, where the Tegra4i will be Nvidia's offering.

summary (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004633)

Summary: pathetic vs a real processor, buy a real computer.

No plans for Tegra 4 in phones! (4, Informative)

default luser (529332) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004675)

Comparing the results against several other phones, it was evident that Tegra 4 will make for the fastest mobile phones yet.

Tegra 4 will not be a phone part (at least not in any phoe that values battery life). Those A15 cores suck down batter life like vampires.

Like Tegra 3, Tegra 4 uses far too much power for mobile phones. The plan this time is to produce two products:

Tegra 4: 4 + 1 Coretex A15 + 72 shaders, several watts power consumption, aimed at tablets.

Tegra 4i: 4 + 1 tweaked Coretex A9 + 60 shaders + integrated LTE, much lower power. [tomshardware.com] Aimed at phones.

Nobody has committed to a Smartphone platform using the A15 precisely because the power consumption is too high. It may be tweaked over time, but right out the gate the power is just not there. This is why Apple went their own way with the A6.

Re: No plans for Tegra 4 in phones! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43006103)

... except there is already a phone announced with Tegra 4 (not 4i):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6771/zte-to-build-tegra-4-smartphone-and-working-on-i500-based-design-as-well

Re: No plans for Tegra 4 in phones! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43006131)

Adding some perspective:

A processor that is not inside a product yet, blows out of the water the "competition" that was already in a released product in september (A6 in iPhone 5). They don't even compare to the latest (A6X in latest iPad, october). Last year Apple released 3 processor revisions (A5X in march, A6 in september and A6X in october). When they announce it is already inside of a product. That's only on Apple's side. There are other competitors.

My bet, when products are out it will not blow the competition out of the water. They will be just competitive. Nvidia has been "blowing the competition out of the water" in announcements in all iterations of Tegra. That's not really the case. This is just marketing.

 

Re: No plans for Tegra 4 in phones! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43008749)

Don't expect the editors to read or care.

Isn't Tegra4 for tablets? (2)

edxwelch (600979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43004769)

I thought the mobile version was the slower Tegra4i. Why are they comparing it with the iPhone5 then and not iPad4?

n900 (1)

Teun (17872) | about a year ago | (#43006479)

They're only useful when they fit the socket of my n900.

Yawn... (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year ago | (#43007273)

Wake me up when the processors are so fast that they can warp the space time continuum...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?