epic 4g processor vs iphone 4 processor

Mo_Chedda

Active member
Nov 29, 2010
39
0
0
Ok the epic usess a hummingbird processor clocked at 1ghz the iphone has a processor that's manufactured by samsung, concluding that the processors are similar, so the question is, which one is comes out on top?
 
Hummingbird and A4 are nearly identical on the processing side of things. The A4 I'm sure is UNDERclocked to about 800Mhz. The Hummingbird is an on demand processor that can run anywhere from 100Mhz to 1Ghz, usually running at 1Ghz with Android devices.

What makes the Hummingbird better is really the GPU, which is more powerful than that in the iPhone 4. I think the iPhone 4 can handle somewhere in the 20 million triangle per second mark vs. the hummingbird that can handle about 90 Million triangles per second.
 
The iPhone 4 is powered by the Apple A4 chip, which was designed by Intrinsity and, like all previous iPhone models, manufactured by Samsung. This system-on-a-chip is composed of a Cortex-A8 CPU integrated with a PowerVR SGX 535 GPU. The Apple A4 is also used in the iPad where it is clocked at its rated speed of 1 GHz. The clock speed in the iPhone 4 Is 700 MHz. All previous models of the iPhone have underclocked the CPU, which typically extends battery life and lowers heat dissipation.

The iPhone 4 has 512 MB of eDRAM. The additional eDRAM supports increased performance and multi-tasking, surpassing the previous limitation of 256 pages of straight-up loops.

The Samsung Galaxy S has the S5PC110 processor. This processor combines a 45 nm 1 GHz ARM Cortex A8 based CPU core with a PowerVR SGX 540 GPU made by Imagination Technologies which supports OpenGL ES 1.1/2.0 and is capable of up to 90 million triangles per second. The CPU core, code-named "Hummingbird", was co-developed by Samsung and Intrinsity. Has 512 MB of dedicated RAM (Mobile DDR) and OneNAND memory combined in a package-on-package stack with the processor. An external microSD card slot supports up to 32GB of additional storage memory.
 
Last edited:
Good analysis except when I have used CPU monitors, I never show usage over 800, and I have tried several programs. I tried overclocks which did ramp up to 1000 but the two apps ate battery
 

Forum statistics

Threads
957,475
Messages
6,973,228
Members
3,163,827
Latest member
aDiscouragedGoogleUser