Samsung Exynos 5250 - production starting in Q2 2012

All the low level scores are higher than the 320 by quite some bit, it generally points out do driver immaturity on the "normal" scores. We'll have to see.

It's a pity that GLBenchmark is the only benchmark out there offering fixed resolution benchmarking, I would like to see some Taiji offscreen scores, as that's more representative of today's gaming loads.

 

What's you're basis for saying it's more representative?

 

Understood. Makes me wonder if ARM underestimated where the competition would be in 2013.

When you go to their T604 product website:

http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-t604.php

Its almost like they are saying: "Skip this product" in favour of the T624

Same if you look at the T658 (wich was announced with T604) they write that you should look at T678 instead

 

Target clock rates are part of the architecture, so I'm not sure you can split it like that.

To reach its peak fillrate in a fillrate test? Why?

 

I might be wrong but I only have seen TBDRs so far coming damn close to their peak theoretical fillrate in synthetic fillrate tests.

I'm taking a different perspective: the cost to support native FP64 isn't exactly cheap rather the contrary. Inevitably it will lead to tradeoffs for performance on other aspects of the GPU like FP32 throughput for example. Whether ARM made the correct design decision to include FP64 that early or not is something that remains to be seen.

I'm not even in the clear yet what T624 exactly stands for compared to T604.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that one since it's not exactly absurd when you have a page for product A to also try to attract a potential customer for a higher end variant than A. T658/678 seem to have twice the amount of clusters of 604/624, which could mean that 658 doubles floating point throughput (and texel fillrates amongst others) compared to 604 at the same frequency. The much more burning question would be how big T604 exactly is and how much bigger or the other higher end variants.

 

New to the Forum, although I've been following it for years.

I am curious about this chipset especially seeing as its likely to be included in the soon to be announced Nexus 10.

Currently the Exynos 5250 is used in the Samsung Chromebook which has been pegged as having up to 6.5 hours battery life. Surely if the 5250 is being used in the Nexus 10 and has to power a larger screen (2560×1600) compared to the Chromebook (1366x768) as well as having to be in a smaller form (tablet rather than laptop), will this not eat up battery like no tomorrow?

Should be expect a smaller cut chip that reduces the power drain or will the chipset be clocked slower to slow the battery drain?

What's your ideas?

 

An idea would be that since a high end tablet isn't going to be cheap and especially with a 2560*1600 display, the manufacturer can include a huge enough battery to ensure a reasonably high battery life. Ever checked how huge the battery on an iPad3 is?

 

Exynos 5250 topping GlBenchmark : http://glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Samsung+Arndale+Board&benchmark=glpro25.

 

Well, it's also clocked at 1.70 Ghz ...

 

It's a devboard running at 1024 x 552 for the onscreen results. I initially thought those were in 2560 and got excited until I saw the actual display resolution.

 

Well, it's got HDMI so guess it can run at a much higher res.

The offscreen test is what counts.

 

Definitely; it still seems to need a whole damn lot of driver love IMHO.

 

First actual 5450 release rumours: http://translate.google.co.jp/trans...p://ddaily.co.kr/news/news_view.php?uid=96826

Move to 28nm in the 5450 and tentatively in the next Samsung flagship (S IV) by next spring/summer. That's earlier than I expected it. If it still comes with the planned T658, that would be quite a big SoC.

 

The 32nm to 28nm transistion will swallow at least some of the additional die area.

 

Nexus 10 now officially announced. 399 dollars for 16 GB version and 499 for the 32 GB version

 

Heard they packed in a much bigger battery than the Chromebook which gets 6.5 hours on the same SOC.

 

No suprise since a 2560*1600 display is going to burn way more power than the one in the Chromebook.

 

Chromebook: 4800 mah

Nexus 10 : 9000 mah

iPad 3: 11600 mah

 

indeed, no apparent support for opengl es 3.0.

thumbs down for a next-gen SoC newly arrived in late 2012.

 

Even if it doesn't support OGL_ES3.0 (which I'm still not convinced about) the relevance for it within 2012 would be what exactly?