Rant about SPECS!!!

[ajarnfalang]

I went to the store and used the S4 for only two minutes, and it lagged in those two minutes. You may not have experienced it, but many others have. It's been acknowledged by nearly all reviewers and most who have used the phone. It's not "disrespect"; it's an observed fact.

Good thing this is a Moto X thread.

In general, Lag is subjective. It may technically lag; but if a particular user can't see the lag, then it doesn't lag.

 

[roadkizzle]

If you think I'm wrong, then specifically say what it is that I'm saying wrong.

Your Moderator; the guy you praise for being some sort of genius, came and started quoting Wikipedia to "teach me" the difference between SoC and Chipset.

That shows 2 things.

1) he doesn't know what he's talking about

2) you guys know even less than him

If you look back, he quoted the definition of Chipset as it pertains to a DESKTOP motherboard, with a north and south bridge, etc.

But in reality, and it he knew anything, he would know that when talking about smartphones and tablets, saying "Chipset" and "SOC" is in fact the SAME bloody thing

That's why if you go to Qualcomm's website, a Snapdragon 800 or 600 is referred to as a CHIPSET. Is it an SoC? Of course it is. It's the same thing.

Your moderator really doesn't know anything.

As for the other guy saying "there isn't any technology from 2012" inside the Moto X, we all know it is true.

Inside the chipset/SoC, are the NEW Krait 300, also part of that chipset is the Adreno 320, which is 2012 technology.

So they are BOTH wrong.

As the other people say, you are wrong, because as a chipset/SoC the MSM8960DT is brand new for this year. This specific piece of hardware is a single component that makes up the phone but it's unable to be separated from its subcomponents so for all intents and purposes it is a singular design that was only able to be created this year when ALL its subcomponents were available.

Again, the Adreno 320 may be older, but the design work that binds it together with the Krait 300s are completely new. Because the two parts only work together as the creation of the MSM8960DT (or in meaningless marketing jargon either the X8 or just as meaningless Snapdragon S4 Pro) they cannot be separated so they cannot be looked at as individual components.

 

[thegrants82]

Again, the Adreno 320 may be older

Agreed and that's one of the reasons that many people are calling the moto x an overpriced, outdated product right out of the box. If you buy the moto x today on a two year contract it will basically contain hardware that's 4 years old by the end of the two years. Just because you can pick your color doesn't change anything. it's outdated being branded as revolutionary.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[ajarnfalang]

As the other people say, you are wrong, because as a chipset/SoC the MSM8960DT is brand new for this year. This specific piece of hardware is a single component that makes up the phone but it's unable to be separated from its subcomponents so for all intents and purposes it is a singular design that was only able to be created this year when ALL its subcomponents were available.

Again, the Adreno 320 may be older, but the design work that binds it together with the Krait 300s are completely new. Because the two parts only work together as the creation of the MSM8960DT (or in meaningless marketing jargon either the X8 or just as meaningless Snapdragon S4 Pro) they cannot be separated so they cannot be looked at as individual components.

You can meltdown all you want.

Again; "There is no 2012 parts inside the Moto X" is false. Period.

And yes, they CAN be looked at individual components. A GPU is a GPU.

 

[Aquila]

Agreed and that's one of the reasons that many people are calling the moto x an overpriced, outdated product right out of the box. If you buy the moto x today on a two year contract it will basically contain hardware that's 4 years old by the end of the two years. Just because you can pick your color doesn't change anything. it's outdated being branded as revolutionary.

Posted via Android Central App

It's not the same 320 as last fall and it is the same 320 as in the One and S4. The only device announced thus far with a better GPU is the G2.

Nexus through spacetime.

 

[roadkizzle]

Agreed and that's one of the reasons that many people are calling the moto x an overpriced, outdated product right out of the box. If you buy the moto x today on a two year contract it will basically contain hardware that's 4 years old by the end of the two years. Just because you can pick your color doesn't change anything. it's outdated being branded as revolutionary.

Posted via Android Central App

Yet my options to buy an Android smartphone at AT&T are the HTC One, HTC Mini, Galaxy S4, Galaxy Note 2, or Galaxy Mega or the Moto X.

Of those the S4 and HTC One both use the Adreno 320, so has a SoC that's just as old or even slightly older than the X8 and costs the same with worse performance, or the One Mini that is entirely worse than the Moto X, or the Mega which is a hot mess.

I will readily buy the Moto X because its chipset is just as old as its competition in the same price level and because virtually every reviewer and person who has had hands on time with the Moto X says it operates smoother.

The Moto X is in no way a downgrade in any way that I look at it.

 

[n0meh9]

This is my first post in this thread. I am buying a MotoX as soon as possible when available on VZW. I conceed that it may not have the latest CPU but believe in the concept of the X8. It's a synergy effect that is unlike in any other phone. Also, if it offloads some of the work to other cpu/gpus so the need for the latest and greatest isn't neccessary. The design was also chosen because the screen is only 720p so it will not be displaying as many pixels and the need for a battery-guzzling architecture was not there. I feel this phone was smartly designed to provide a better user experience than to provide a few tech geeks with an unneccessary sense of smugness. This phone was also built in America, which provides me with a little bit of pride. All this leads to a phone that I can't wait to own.
I feel you should move onto better things than these petty arguments. I don't like Apple but I don't spend all day on the message boards telling people why they shouldn't buy their products. I choose Android for my reasons and if someone asks me my opinion, then I give it to them and respectfully explain why I feel the way I do. I have plenty of friends that own Apple products and own Samsung phones and as long as they enjoy what they have, then what more do you want? As long as they are happy and not completely ignorant of the facts than nothing else matters.

 

[ajarnfalang]

It's not the same 320 as last fall and it is the same 320 as in the One and S4. The only device announced thus far with a better GPU is the G2.

Nexus through spacetime.

Bhuahahaha!!

Oh man. You guys are crazy. I'm just wasting time here.

You show us any evidence that there is in fact more than one Adreno 320. And explain that please. I can't wait to hear this.

 

[roadkizzle]

You can meltdown all you want.

Again; "There is no 2012 parts inside the Moto X" is false. Period.

And yes, they CAN be looked at individual components. A GPU is a GPU.

That's not true. The MSM8960DT is an individual component. It is impossible to pull the GPU out of it, hook it up to another CPU and expect it to work.
The GPU is not an individual component so it doesn't really matter when it was initially released.

But, all you have to do is look at the graphical benchmarks between the Moto X and other devices with the Adreno 320. Take the Nexus 4 as an example. The Moto X is getting twice the scores even though they are supposed to have the same GPU and the Moto X is "downgraded" to a dual core one.

 

[Aquila]

Bhuahahaha!!

Oh man. You guys are crazy. I'm just wasting time here.

You show us any evidence that there is in fact more than one Adreno 320. And explain that please. I can't wait to hear this.

That explanation is earlier in this thread, but it was also hyped this spring when OEMs started using the S600.

Nexus through spacetime.

 

[JungleLarry]

I'm just wasting time here.

Indeed.

 

[mcelmeel17]

There is old technology in every phone. The difference is that you argue the most pointless crap.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[benjamminh]

There is old technology in every phone. The difference is that you argue the most pointless crap.

Posted via Android Central App

Walk-off, thread-ender.

 

[thegrants82]

But it IS revolutionary. There is no other phone that works quite like the Moto X.

Do you really believe that the Moto X is the only ground breaking one? There are three that work exactly like the Moto X. Droid Mini, Ultra and Maxx and to tell you the truth the Maxx does it much better with a battery that lasts almost two full days. I picked up the Maxx instead of the Moto X and wouldn't trade it in a second.

 

[Jahmal A]

Though I'm a BlackBerry guy, I think that there need to be more manufacturers for Android that follows the Moto X's approach. I personally think that user experience outweighs specs. You can put a 1000hp engine in a Civic, but that doesn't mean that you can effectively drive such a vehicle (or have a long lasting experience on top of that).

Smartphones should be made with efficiency in mind. Having high resolution and high powered processors (though they are actually spec'd down from the advertised value) doesn't really improve the user experience. Comparing a 5" smartphone screen to a 50" TV screen is absolutely silly. Resolution only matters, when all the correct components are in place. What I mean is, you can notice the difference between 720p and 1080p when using a properly sourced 1080p signal. At the same time, watching a 1080 p video that has a lot of compression can look worse than a 720p with very little compression. On a cell phone, the only high resolution source that can provide over 720 p would be pictures, unless you want to completely fill a microSD card to get a low compression 1080p video or game on it.

Don't get me wrong, we need to continue to have high expectations from manufacturers and keep pushing the envelop in terms of technology. But how are these improvements actually making the cell phone experience better? We have become complacent with crappy battery life just to show off a smartphones with several processors and high resolution, that we can only enjoy for short periods of time.

I also don't feel this practice of releasing amazingly high spec phones every 3-6 months is sustainable for most manufacturers. Only one manufacturer can do this effectively, Samsung. Samsung makes components for all cell phones and makes several tiers of cell phones, so they can afford to sell high tier devices at lower prices (and later recycle/reuse the parts in future lower tier devices). I don't think Samsung takes time to effectively optimize the performance of their devices to use the high end specs (except for the benchmark software). All other manufacturers are struggling to survive and keep up with this pace that Samsung is going with.

The argument that manufacturers on Android can only compete in this way may be used, but I don't think that is necessarily true. If each manufacturer has something in mind to make the user experience better, I'm sure they can compete in the marketplace. Not everyone is buying the high-end phones nor does everyone care to control all the Earth's satellites from his/her cell phone (i.e., overly powerful device).

On another note, the cost of a smartphone is more than just the price of its individual components. Volume, engineering/testing/optimizing/development, overhead, etc, all these things have an effect on sale price. Samsung does a lot of internal sourcing and produces larger volumes, so their overhead is lower.

At any rate, kudos to Motorola for taking a different approach.

 

[anon(11078)]

Do you really believe that the Moto X is the only ground breaking one? There are three that work exactly like the Moto X. Droid Mini, Ultra and Maxx and to tell you the truth the Maxx does it much better with a battery that lasts almost two full days. I picked up the Maxx instead of the Moto X and wouldn't trade it in a second.

Wait a minute? You bought the MAXX? The one with the same X8 system as the Moto? The one that you suggest is old 2012 technology that makes the Moto X over priced and outdated? What's more, you paid I think $100 more for it? I don't quite get it the argument you've been making here.

As for why I would pick the Moto X over the MAXX. I charge my phone every night. I already have a couple of portable battery packs that I can use to do a charge on my phone if that becomes necessary. ( I owned a GNex so what can I say?) So the only thing the MAXX would give me is more weight, a worse form factor, $100 fewer dollars and a screen that's bit less sharp? I like my decision.

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

If you think I'm wrong, then specifically say what it is that I'm saying wrong.

Your Moderator; the guy you praise for being some sort of genius, came and started quoting Wikipedia to "teach me" the difference between SoC and Chipset.

That shows 2 things.

1) he doesn't know what he's talking about

2) you guys know even less than him

If you look back, he quoted the definition of Chipset as it pertains to a DESKTOP motherboard, with a north and south bridge, etc.

But in reality, and it he knew anything, he would know that when talking about smartphones and tablets, saying "Chipset" and "SOC" is in fact the SAME bloody thing

That's why if you go to Qualcomm's website, a Snapdragon 800 or 600 is referred to as a CHIPSET. Is it an SoC? Of course it is. It's the same thing.

Your moderator really doesn't know anything.

As for the other guy saying "there isn't any technology from 2012" inside the Moto X, we all know it is true.

Inside the chipset/SoC, are the NEW Krait 300, also part of that chipset is the Adreno 320, which is 2012 technology.

So they are BOTH wrong.

Ahem, if I may:

It may be considered a chipset, but in the world of technology looking at the big picture, it's a SoC. Sure, you can switch the terms and still get the point across, but it's a SoC. I would appreciate it if you would stop ranting the same thing over and over and just CALL IT A SoC ALREADY!

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[benjamminh]

I charge my phone every night. What exactly will the MAXX give me other than more weight, a worse form factor and a screen that's less sharp?

More weight and form factor are personal preferences. The X is your preference in those areas. As far as screen, the Maxx is a somewhat larger screen. The tradeoff is fewer pixels. If you could truly tell the difference on a daily basis between 312 ppi and 294 ppi (without them side by side and looking from a place much closer than you normally do) then you must have remarkable visual acuity. Perhaps so.

As far as battery, the advantage is you can basically do whatever you want with the Maxx throughout the day and it will last the whole day. Or if you are somewhere where you cannot charge for a night you can manage your use and very likely get through 36 hours without too many compromises.

The great thing is that we have options. So I can see where the Moto X is a better option for many people, and for other people the Maxx makes more sense.

 

[thegrants82]

I charge my phone every night. What exactly will the MAXX give me other than more weight, a worse form factor and a screen that's less sharp?

Much better build quality for one. Reports are already coming out pertaining to the Moto X and sloppy glued together assembly techniques. These guys are running late and slapping them together too fast. I believe that during the next month you will be reading a lot about botched assembly problems from the Texas plant. Read Phils latest article on why you should wait before you buy the first runs....

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

Though I'm a BlackBerry guy, I think that there need to be more manufacturers for Android that follows the Moto X's approach. I personally think that user experience outweighs specs. You can put a 1000hp engine in a Civic, but that doesn't mean that you can effectively drive such a vehicle (or have a long lasting experience on top of that).

Smartphones should be made with efficiency in mind. Having high resolution and high powered processors (though they are actually spec'd down from the advertised value) doesn't really improve the user experience. Comparing a 5" smartphone screen to a 50" TV screen is absolutely silly. Resolution only matters, when all the correct components are in place. What I mean is, you can notice the difference between 720p and 1080p when using a properly sourced 1080p signal. At the same time, watching a 1080 p video that has a lot of compression can look worse than a 720p with very little compression. On a cell phone, the only high resolution source that can provide over 720 p would be pictures, unless you want to completely fill a microSD card to get a low compression 1080p video or game on it.

Don't get me wrong, we need to continue to have high expectations from manufacturers and keep pushing the envelop in terms of technology. But how are these improvements actually making the cell phone experience better? We have become complacent with crappy battery life just to show off a smartphones with several processors and high resolution, that we can only enjoy for short periods of time.

I also don't feel this practice of releasing amazingly high spec phones every 3-6 months is sustainable for most manufacturers. Only one manufacturer can do this effectively, Samsung. Samsung makes components for all cell phones and makes several tiers of cell phones, so they can afford to sell high tier devices at lower prices (and later recycle/reuse the parts in future lower tier devices). I don't think Samsung takes time to effectively optimize the performance of their devices to use the high end specs (except for the benchmark software). All other manufacturers are struggling to survive and keep up with this pace that Samsung is going with.

The argument that manufacturers on Android can only compete in this way may be used, but I don't think that is necessarily true. If each manufacturer has something in mind to make the user experience better, I'm sure they can compete in the marketplace. Not everyone is buying the high-end phones nor does everyone care to control all the Earth's satellites from his/her cell phone (i.e., overly powerful device).

On another note, the cost of a smartphone is more than just the price of its individual components. Volume, engineering/testing/optimizing/development, overhead, etc, all these things have an effect on sale price. Samsung does a lot of internal sourcing and produces larger volumes, so their overhead is lower.

At any rate, kudos to Motorola for taking a different approach.

You just wrote a college essay on a Forums site. Ain't nobody got time for that!

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app