Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 12-Mar-2012, 17:48   #1
ToTTenTranz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,533
Default "Obscure" 800MHz dual-core SoC in Samsung Galaxy Ace 2?

GSMArena claims the Galaxy Ace 2 has a dual-core 800MHz SoC, which sounds a bit powerful for a supposedly low-cost smartphone.

Does anyone know what could this SoC be? I've seen comments about it being an underclocked ST-Ericsson U8500, others claiming it's a Renesas chip.
Could it be Renesas EV2, which supposedly tops at 533MHz per core, and has been appearing in low-cost chinese tablets for a while?



The SoC in the Galaxy Tab 2 10.1" is also a mistery at the moment. There's only mention of it being a dual-core 1GHz SoC, which rules out Exynos 4210, Tegra 3, OMAP4460 and others. Maybe Tegra 2 again?
ToTTenTranz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-Mar-2012, 18:35   #2
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

I Suppose it doesn't really rule out anything as we have such limited specs, clock speeds can be clocked up or down a few hundred mhz...so could well be another 4210??
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-Mar-2012, 19:00   #3
ToTTenTranz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post
I Suppose it doesn't really rule out anything as we have such limited specs, clock speeds can be clocked up or down a few hundred mhz...so could well be another 4210??
Exynos 4210 for a low-cost smartphone seems way too much, so you're talking about the tablet?
Why would Samsung clock the Exynos 4210 to 1GHz in a tablet whereas the year-old smartphone version has been running at 20% higher clocks?
ToTTenTranz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-Mar-2012, 22:28   #4
Mariner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz View Post
GSMArena claims the Galaxy Ace 2 has a dual-core 800MHz SoC, which sounds a bit powerful for a supposedly low-cost smartphone.
I'm not so sure I'd agree it is a low-cost smartphone. GSMArena report it is going to cost 250 and it reportedly has a 3.8" WVGA screen. Definitely mid-range for me though admittedly towards the lower-end of mid-range

As for the SoC used? No idea.

Erm, how about a dual Cortex-A5?

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/02/2...ntial-failure/

The Qualcomm MSM7227A would seem to fit the bill.
__________________
Tha's all I can stands, and I can't stands no more...
Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-Mar-2012, 23:07   #5
ToTTenTranz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariner
The Qualcomm MSM7227A would seem to fit the bill.
Except it's not a dual core..
Though I'm more inclined in GSMArena being wrong.. they took it from a Samsung statement claiming it has a "dual engine", whatever that means.
ToTTenTranz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-Mar-2012, 07:03   #6
Mariner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz View Post
Except it's not a dual core..
Though I'm more inclined in GSMArena being wrong.. they took it from a Samsung statement claiming it has a "dual engine", whatever that means.
Sorry, got my links mixed up due to a lack of sleep. I was thinking of the following article which mentioned budget dual-core chips from Qualcomm:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/08/q...to-s4-migrati/

Apparently, MSM8225 (which I believe may be a dual-core Cortex-A5), is software and hardware compatible with the earlier MSM7227A and the like.
__________________
Tha's all I can stands, and I can't stands no more...
Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-Mar-2012, 10:36   #7
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz View Post
Exynos 4210 for a low-cost smartphone seems way too much, so you're talking about the tablet?
Why would Samsung clock the Exynos 4210 to 1GHz in a tablet whereas the year-old smartphone version has been running at 20% higher clocks?
I was talking about the tablet, but yes it would seem a little strange to do that, although Qualcomm has some midrange s4 SOC's on the way that reach that frequency and decent enough performance for a tablet design.
Take a look at the MSM 8x27 below..
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-Mar-2012, 14:00   #8
Exophase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 1,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariner View Post
I'm not so sure I'd agree it is a low-cost smartphone. GSMArena report it is going to cost 250 and it reportedly has a 3.8" WVGA screen. Definitely mid-range for me though admittedly towards the lower-end of mid-range

As for the SoC used? No idea.

Erm, how about a dual Cortex-A5?

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/02/2...ntial-failure/

The Qualcomm MSM7227A would seem to fit the bill.
"An ARM spokesperson told us that the A5 turned out to be twice as fast as the A8 on average because of architectural tweaks carried out over the last two years."

Oh god, this comment is worse than Intel level and I seriously hope ARM didn't really say that (or if they did, that the spokesperson wasn't an engineer and is disciplined for this massive gaffe). In the real world a Cortex-A9 comes nowhere remotely close to 2x the performance clock for clock as a Cortex-A8 in any test (try more like 1.2-1.3x) and I'm sure that ARM doesn't mean to say now that Cortex-A5 is faster than Cortex-A9 (their claims are for similar clock speeds).
Exophase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-Mar-2012, 14:14   #9
glw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 64
Default

I suspect that statement was mangled from something like "the Cortex-A5 has twice the performance per Watt of the Cortex-A8", which is what ARM have said about the A5.
glw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-Mar-2012, 14:19   #10
Exophase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 1,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glw View Post
I suspect that statement was mangled from something like "the Cortex-A5 has twice the performance per Watt of the Cortex-A8", which is what ARM have said about the A5.
I sure hope so.
Exophase is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.