Reconsidering the TB for a different phone? Here's a few comparisons.

[Geeksy]

And even with cost, this is a big deal for Verizon and their (apparently) rabid fans. I saw the light of smart phones before my Storm finally died about 10 months ago, and I've been without a phone entirely for going on 3 weeks, so I'm understandably ecstatic about this phone. I'm also in one of the handful of cities that will get to use the fancy new LTE network, and I go to a school whose internet connection is a whimper against even modest reports on LTE speed.

It's got the front camera we like, it takes after its dad, the DInc, in the best ways, and it seems to have one of the best and final single core processors for mobile devices. All-in-all I'm looking forward to the device as objectively as I can, and I hope that it holds the same (and hopefully better) shelf life as the Incredible.

 

[pstinger]

The chipset is not the same as the Dinc. It's the Snapdragon Gen 2.

Some benchmarks (The MyTouch 4G has the same chipset):
LG Optimus 3D Preliminary Performance - OMAP4 Tested - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

This phone is pretty fast. In fact, the review from Wirefly benchmarked the Thunderbolt faster than the MyTouch 4G, so that sweetens the deal.


Also, just because the camera is the same mega pixel rating does not mean it's the same camera. We already know it's a better camera than what's in the Evo (which came out after the Dinc)

I know the TBolt sports the g2 Snap, but what does that chip offer over the g1? They've got the same clocks, but what are the comparisons on cache and bus speeds? I'm assuming the g2 Snap has better power consumption ratings (I hope at least).

 

[upz3]

I know the TBolt sports the g2 Snap, but what does that chip offer over the g1? They've got the same clocks, but what are the comparisons on cache and bus speeds? I'm assuming the g2 Snap has better power consumption ratings (I hope at least).

It's something between 30-45% better efficiency with regards to battery usage. Someone will of course correct me there.

Also apparently keeps up well enough with the Tegra 2 initial chipset.

 

[pstinger]

And even with cost, this is a big deal for Verizon and their (apparently) rabid fans. I saw the light of smart phones before my Storm finally died about 10 months ago, and I've been without a phone entirely for going on 3 weeks, so I'm understandably ecstatic about this phone. I'm also in one of the handful of cities that will get to use the fancy new LTE network, and I go to a school whose internet connection is a whimper against even modest reports on LTE speed.

It's got the front camera we like, it takes after its dad, the DInc, in the best ways, and it seems to have one of the best and final single core processors for mobile devices. All-in-all I'm looking forward to the device as objectively as I can, and I hope that it holds the same (and hopefully better) shelf life as the Incredible.

I agree, this is a big deal for VZW, and the TBolt is a very nice device. Coming from a Storm, it's gotta look like the second coming, lol.

But how long until HTC drops a dual core phone for Verizon?

 

[pstinger]

It's something between 30-45% better efficiency with regards to battery usage. Someone will of course correct me there.

Also apparently keeps up well enough with the Tegra 2 initial chipset.

O.O

You mean I could probably go a full day at work WITHOUT having to put my phone on a charger!!!!!??!?!? Lol, I hope those numbers are accurate, if not a low-ball figure. I get about 4-6 hours out of my DInc before I'm being yelled at to connect it to a charger........

>.>

Yes, I use it that much.

 

[thedeceiver]

What assumptions am I making outside of the LTE data pricing?

LTE is one of the biggest selling points of the phone... so, that's a pretty big assumption. You're also assuming the chipset is not improved (which it is)...

Is the device going to change your life? No. Is it a noticeable improvement (both 4G and non 4G aspects) to a Dinc? Yes.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

In certain areas it keeps up. Power consumption is a lot better in Gen 2. Also the adreno 205 gpu is immensely better.

In a side by side between the inspire (same chipset) and atrix (tegra 2) the atrix was a little faster. But the inspire was NOT slow at all.

The thunderbolt will be a great phone. LTE and battery life have yet to be determined.

Sent from my myTouch 4G

 

[zshazz]

I know the TBolt sports the g2 Snap, but what does that chip offer over the g1? They've got the same clocks, but what are the comparisons on cache and bus speeds? I'm assuming the g2 Snap has better power consumption ratings (I hope at least).

The G2 Snapdragon is based off of the 45nm shrink as opposed to 65nm Gen 1.

I posted benchmarks to show you how much faster the chip is. Clock speed is not nearly the whole story. In addition to the generational improvements you'd expect, the Gen 2 snapdragon has a significantly faster Adreno 205 GPU (not quite as fast as the hummingbird's SGX 540, though).

I'm not sure about the "cache and bus speeds" but I can tell you they would still matter less than benchmarks showing how it performs. FWIW, it looks like to me from the videos that the Thunderbolt's speed/smoothness is among the best I've ever seen in an Android phone. Most people have commented that the Atrix is sluggesh in general use, so the Bionic may mirror that experience.

In any case, the next "exciting" chipset will really be either the Gen 3 Snapdragon (The dual core one) or the quad core Kal El Tegra 3. That's about 8-12 months away.

 

[upz3]

O.O

You mean I could probably go a full day at work WITHOUT having to put my phone on a charger!!!!!??!?!? Lol, I hope those numbers are accurate, if not a low-ball figure. I get about 4-6 hours out of my DInc before I'm being yelled at to connect it to a charger........

>.>

Yes, I use it that much.

The kicker is will you keep 4G on all of the time? If your going to be running 4G, regardless of what the processor saves you, the life will drain quickly... its been noted.

 

[pstinger]

LTE is one of the biggest selling points of the phone... so, that's a pretty big assumption. You're also assuming the chipset is not improved (which it is)...

Is the device going to change your life? No. Is it a noticeable improvement (both 4G and non 4G aspects) to a Dinc? Yes.

I wasn't assuming the chipset wasn't improved at all (I was assuming the power management, for example, would be improved); my assumption with the chipset was the speed being comparable to the DInc - which is due to my lack of motivation to dig into chipset specs beyond the deceiving gHz glitz. If I came across as having the assumption that the g1 and g2 Snaps were the same, I do apologize.

As for the 4G assumption; yeah. LTE is the biggest selling point for the TBolt, but LTE alone does not a compelling device make, especially when LTE availability is still very limited (although if VZW sticks to their plan, that limitedness will soon evaporate; here's to hoping). Further, I feel that my assumption about data pricing is a valid one (perhaps not to the hyperbolic extent that I joked about).

 

[pstinger]

The G2 Snapdragon is based off of the 45nm shrink as opposed to 65nm Gen 1.

I posted benchmarks to show you how much faster the chip is. Clock speed is not nearly the whole story. In addition to the generational improvements you'd expect, the Gen 2 snapdragon has a significantly faster Adreno 205 GPU (not quite as fast as the hummingbird's SGX 540, though).

I'm not sure about the "cache and bus speeds" but I can tell you they would still matter less than benchmarks showing how it performs. FWIW, it looks like to me from the videos that the Thunderbolt's speed/smoothness is among the best I've ever seen in an Android phone. Most people have commented that the Atrix is sluggesh in general use, so the Bionic may mirror that experience.

In any case, the next "exciting" chipset will really be either the Gen 3 Snapdragon (The dual core one) or the quad core Kal El Tegra 3. That's about 8-12 months away.

The problem with benchmarks is that they're so dependent on things outside the core ability of the chipset. You can tweak and poke and get outstanding benchmarks out of mediocre chips, just like you can get awful bench's out of stellar chips. The actual specs are where it's at because they allow you to compare chipsets under theoretical (and identical) conditions. A chipset with a faster bus and larger cache will out perform one with lesser specs any day, under identical conditions.

And I know clock speed isn't the whole story; it's a very small fraction.





And... Motorola........ they can take their Bionic and Atrix and choke on them for all I care. But that's another thread entirely.

 

[zshazz]

The problem with benchmarks is that they're so dependent on things outside the core ability of the chipset. You can tweak and poke and get outstanding benchmarks out of mediocre chips, just like you can get awful bench's out of stellar chips. The actual specs are where it's at because they allow you to compare chipsets under theoretical (and identical) conditions. A chipset with a faster bus and larger cache will out perform one with lesser specs any day, under identical conditions.

And I know clock speed isn't the whole story; it's a very small fraction.

I understand your attitude towards benchmarks (it comes from cheating companies in the PC industry), but "theoretical conditions" are even less useful in determining performance. "Theoretically" the Tegra 2 platform will be 50% faster (in at least some cases) because it is dual core. However, since no applications exist that take advantage of it (and they won't exist for months to even a year), it has no bearing on any comparisons.

Of course, the benchmarks we have aren't always going to represent real life conditions either, but it's as close as we can get for now.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

The problem with benchmarks is that they're so dependent on things outside the core ability of the chipset. You can tweak and poke and get outstanding benchmarks out of mediocre chips, just like you can get awful bench's out of stellar chips. The actual specs are where it's at because they allow you to compare chipsets under theoretical (and identical) conditions. A chipset with a faster bus and larger cache will out perform one with lesser specs any day, under identical conditions.

And I know clock speed isn't the whole story; it's a very small fraction.





And... Motorola........ they can take their Bionic and Atrix and choke on them for all I care. But that's another thread entirely.

The benchmarks he quoted are as close to fair as you can get. Anandtech is exhaustive and as thorough as any site I've seen when they review things. I use them as a good comparison and point people to them quite often.

IMO they are a very reputable and reliable source for information. And they are extremely thorough with benchmarks.

Sent from my myTouch 4G

 

[pstinger]

I understand your attitude towards benchmarks (it comes from cheating companies in the PC industry), but "theoretical conditions" are even less useful in determining performance. "Theoretically" the Tegra 2 platform will be 50% faster (in at least some cases) because it is dual core. However, since no applications exist that take advantage of it (and they won't exist for months to even a year), it has no bearing on any comparisons.

Of course, the benchmarks we have aren't always going to represent real life conditions either, but it's as close as we can get for now.

True. Theoretical conditions will never get you to real-life performance, but what they will tell you is in any given situation which chipset will perform better than another under the same conditions; the issue, though, with comparisons against dual core chips in this millieu does stand. Until the software is optimized for dual core usage, those chips will not approach their theoretical potential.




Just looked up specs for the g1 and g2 snaps:

G1: 1.3g clock; 256k cache. PC/LP DDR2 compatible. 41m TPS / 30fps @ 720p video. 700mW at peak.

G2: 1.0g clock; 256k cache. LP DD2 compatible. 41m TPS / 30fps @ 720p video. 500mW at peak.


Both chipsets, incidentally, rise out of the 45nm LP proces.

(specs from http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf, page 2)

 

[jdport]

I think it's worth the time... but if you're paying full retail, I don't know that ANY phone is worth the money.

 

[Cyber Warrior]

One thing to keep in mind about the higher price of this phone is that it's coming with a 32G SD Card. A $100-$200 price for one of these cards at retail. Okay... make the phone $500 like most other phone prices with these specs and put a 16G card in it instead.

 

[pstinger]

One thing to keep in mind about the higher price of this phone is that it's coming with a 32G SD Card. A $100-$200 price for one of these cards at retail. Okay... make the phone $500 like most other phone prices with these specs and put a 16G card in it instead.

32g mSD @ Amazon: $62 and change... Where are you buying your cards?

 

[bkorver]

32g mSD @ Amazon: $62 and change... Where are you buying your cards?

The SanDisk 32 gig class 4 (that the phone ships with) is 93.99 on amazon.

Click Here

 

[Cyber Warrior]

32g mSD @ Amazon: $62 and change... Where are you buying your cards?

Its an estimate.depending on where you go... what brand and what class is that $62 card? You have a link you can post?

 

[pstinger]

Its an estimate.depending on where you go... what brand and what class is that $62 card? You have a link you can post?

I didn't look, honestly; I just googled 32gb sd card and pulled up the Amazon result.