yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Galaxy S 4 General] Funkym0nkey:
Check out the battery stats thread. On stock/ samsung based roms most exynos users are actually getting way more battery life than S600 users.

These scripted battery tests done by tech sites are useless in real world. Mainly because they negate the whole advantage of cluster migration in real life.

In real physical world, even when core migration is not implemented, with just cluster migration, Exynos is on par and in many cases better in terms of battery life.

Exynos 5's trump card is still performance. And it has plenty of it. In Octa, the low powered cores are still helping us achieve respectable to downright impressive battery life. It is good to know that I have cores under the hood when needed to eek out that extra performance. Frankly in its life cycle we probably wont need or see the maximum performance out of either S600 or Exynos.

There are always people out there with issues with any device. Lot of them are users who are just too afraid to do anything with their device and wants to run it stock and them whine in XDA forums when they cant match performance or battery life of those running custom ROMs and kernels. It is majority of this crowd that you will see complaining even on XDA ( I find it extremely funny when those people are actually on XDA forums ).

For those who are ready to get their hands dirty, the Exynos devices are already running smoothly with very limited development, with great performance and with great battery life. Things are only going to get better.

If anyone wants to bring up stock performance argument on XDA forums, they can KMA and GTFO.:p:D
[Galaxy S 4 General] Rahulrulez:
I strongly agree. This article is little bit over hyped. That's why I have asked them to include my tweet in their article which they did. I specifically asked Samsung about this, they denied (obviously they will do so) the fact that there are some serious issues at silicon level in this Exynos Octa. Nobody here can confirm if the problem is in hardware or software.

If the problem is in software, we can easily overcome it by the time. Come on guys, the phone is not even 1 month old. Since this was the first phone in Exynos Octa series. Everyone of us should have expected these issues. I am sure either Samsung or our amazing Kernel developers should fix it. We just need more time.

Remember, when SGS (I9000) was released, how unfinished it is? Full of lag (even though it was one of the fastest phone by hardware specs). Samsung and Developers all together will fix the issues by time. I am waiting for proper IKS logic to be implemented in this variant.

About battery life.. I get around 26-30h battery life with more than regular use (2G, WIFI always on, little bit gaming, heavy social networking, camera, music for 2 hours). It is impractical to except more than 1 day battery life for device like this. A15 picks up heavy tasks brilliantly. No lag at all. I agree TouchWiz still has to improve a lot..

I just removed stock launcher, installed Apex.. And I am good to go.. Amazing, smooth experience..

The only good thing I expect from Samsung is to release proper documentation so that we can get more resources for development too :)
[Galaxy S 4 General] saadi703:
There is no doubt that I9500 is a superior product than S600 based S4 because I do not have any lags that S600 users have and I have better battery life, better GPU peformance in games etc. I made the right decision. I already have HTC One as well so what's the point of buying another S600 based device.
[Galaxy S 4 General] jj03:
Prefer the s600 to the octa...seems to be alot of **** wrong with octa version from what i have read here. It is the right choice.battery life so far is pretty impressive.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Beefheart:
There are reasons to say the I9500 is a superior product than there I9505 (and vice versa), but perceived lag on a piece of software (which TW is) isn't one of them. Then you talk of having better battery life whilst not actually knowing its the case as it very much depends on how the respective owners of both devices use the phones.

As for GPU performance, it should be remembered that the Adreno will offer considerable advantages when more developers start using OpenGL ES 3 given that the Mali in the I9500 doesn't support it. I believe there is already a 10+fps difference in non-public beta builds of Dolphin emulator for example.

Sent from my Qualcomm Galaxy S4
[Galaxy S 4 General] rakeshishere:
I9500 doesn't have MALI GPU :rolleyes:
[Galaxy S 4 General] Beefheart:
PowerVR I mean. Either way, it doesn't natively support OpenGL ES 3 which was the point.
[Galaxy S 4 General] danveer:
I cant give the source cause I dont remember where I read it but power vr can support opengl 3.0 or atleast most of its extensions and imagination technologies are themselves gonna update the gpu
[Galaxy S 4 General] EPICTROY:
Yeesssssss give me the snapdragon 800 please:)
[Galaxy S 4 General] Beefheart:
But, unlike the Adreno in the I9505, it doesn't support it natively so will take a performance hit in comparison.
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
What does that even mean? The features are either supported in hardware or they are not. The 544 will get several 3.0 extensions exposed in its drivers in the future. You don't "emulate" extensions.
[Galaxy S 4 General] I_M_I_2:
From all I understand, the limitation in cpu will only not allow best optimisation of battery life. Not much to do with the speed and performance. S4 is my first samsung with almost 8 years with htc and the battery life so far has pleased me. It needs more development to improve further. I am sure it could have been better without the HW limitations, but nothing really to cry about.

My only gripe atm is not enough developer support. All my htc devices had great support.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Beefheart:
I see. So everything I have read indicating the OpenGL ES 3 advantages the Adreno holds over the PowerVR in hardware is fabrication, yes?
[Galaxy S 4 General] m.garz:
i'm glad i got the i9505 :)
[Galaxy S 4 General] atilla88:
Happy i went with the dragon
[Galaxy S 4 General] nabilsilva:
even when i was using the stock rom i dint have the reboot issue and when i was using wanam's adam kernel i got it once but havent since i updated to the latest version of it
[Galaxy S 4 General] dannyfly:
Bought 9500 and compared to 9505 in retail store side by side.....9505 is definitely slower. Can't compare battery usage it really depends on usage pattern.

For day to day use 9500>9505..
[Galaxy S 4 General] qsacage:
So.. It's NOT easy todo the best smartphone on the planet?!!??!
[Galaxy S 4 General] Aasim-:
As if you had a choice:p

Sent from a device with more than 7 cores:cool:
[Galaxy S 4 General] Beefheart:
What, you have used both day to day rather than looking at the I9505 for five minutes in a shop? If not your comment is an irrelevance.

Sent from my Qualcomm Galaxy S4
[Galaxy S 4 General] wizard.jackwest:
I was planning to buy a S4. My country sells both the i9500 and i9505. I heard some reviews that the i9505 allegedly face some stuttering problems as compared to i9500. I wonder if this is really true. :)
[Galaxy S 4 General] Evilspawn:
I really hate when people copy and paste from website rather than post the link to the article, nor giving credit to the author...op should be deleted
[Galaxy S 4 General] BamAlmighty:
I really am stick of responses like this, it really gives no real indication of performance.

Lag in touchwiz is not a true indication of processor power, but a indication of how crappy Samsung is at optimizing their software for processors not of their own.
[Galaxy S 4 General] SirCanealot:
It's been confirmed that the issues are hardware/silicone related.
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
By who? If you mean by devs here than you must be out of your mind. How can the devs possibly know how Samsung implemented the CCI part in the chip? Or how to enable it without the proper sources from Samsung?

Please, I really getting upset of people commenting without knowing anything. Wait for an official response from Samsung and than you peoples can bash how bad Samsung all day long.

Sent from the octa planet in the fourth galaxy
[Galaxy S 4 General] BarryH_GEG:
Exactly. I think the "claim" is that Samsung implemented Octa without CCI-400. Looking at the schematics a couple of pages back and below it looks: A) impossible, and B) why the hell would they license (pay for) ARM's architecture (big.LITTLE

and

CCI-400) and not use it as they purchased it? There's a lot not understood about Octa’s operability and what's not known is being replaced with wild ass guesses. I asked it before and no one answered. Based on the function CCI-400 serves, if it’s not in Octa what replaced it and why?

CoreLink CCI-400 Cache Coherent Interconnect

Massive growth in system integration places on-chip communication at the center of system performance. The ARM® CoreLink™ CCI-400 Cache Coherent Interconnect provides full cache coherency between two clusters of multi-core CPUs, such as the ARM Cortex™-A15, Cortex™-A7 and Cortex-A50 series processors enabling big.LITTLE; and I/O coherency for devices such as the Mali™-T604 GPU, and I/O masters like modem and USB.

To date ARM has licensed the CCI-400 product to over 18 licensees including Samsung

, LSI, HiSilicon, STEricsson, Fujitsu and LG. The CCI-400 implements the AMBA® 4 ACE™ and ACE-Lite™ protocols.​
[Galaxy S 4 General] m.garz:
Yep, i did have a choice, i can even get the Korean Version if i wanted to but i went with snappy ;)
[Galaxy S 4 General] sebarkh:
No lags here at all. Newest firmware. Heavy user.

Sent with Samsung Galaxy S4 (GT I9505)
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
Nobody EVER claimed it's not present in the chip. The claim is that its coherency model is crippled in its implementation and not used, and that has also nothing to do with that block schematic. Physically the CCI is just a bus but there's special ports attached to it which do the magic.

The Qualcomm modems are capable of supporting pretty much most of all global bands, and there is no difference in connection between them and the SoC. Any difference in the global LTE variants, except the Korean one, are just amplifiers, which you just quoted the RF360 as a solution.

The RF360 is not a baseband, it's an amplifier.
[Galaxy S 4 General] saype:
I will sell my S4...

Enviado de meu GT-I9500 usando o Tapatalk 2
[Galaxy S 4 General] rcarlossgs:
For some of you non-geeks

I was trying to understand what is the whole issue about, so post some research this is what I found

http://www.armtechforum.com.cn/2012...E_Technology_for_Power_and_Energy_Savings.pdf

more interested in slide 24 & 25
[Galaxy S 4 General] Tears for Fears:
And what will you get? Whatever phone you'll choose, it'll be a downgrade, so your idea is pretty pointless.
[Galaxy S 4 General] 95mediatech:
Really A good post. Makes me more confidence. I just afraid and fear after reading most of the posts . Anyway I Ordered my s4 i9500 and going to get it tomorrow morning.

I hope there's much more updates to fix all those criticisms.

I poured my hard earned money on it. Hope it delivers the best of its price worth. I am going to keep it stock and even doesn't have interest to root it. Hope there's update.
[Galaxy S 4 General] SirCanealot:
Please go and read all of AndreiLux's posts on here and beyond3d.

I'm not really bashing them. It's just a fact they rushed it. Considering it's the first commercial implementation of big little (am I right about that?), can we really complain?
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
With all the respect to AndreiLux and beyond3d (which are amazing developers), they have no idea how Samsung actually implemented the big.LITTLE architecture in their chip.
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
Such a stupid statement, it's at the same level of "We don't know how Toyota implemented the car". The basic elements are all the same.

I don't do claims based on uncertain first-hand experiences with the code and the phone, I actually went and asked one of the lead developers at Linaro about it. On top of that I have another source separate from that telling the same thing.

Of course, Samsung may have some other shenanigans going on as they're still denying the whole thing, that's still a very valid possibility. We'll know for sure after the Arndale Octa board is released and more public channels open up with it.
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
Never said you based your claims only on code but only Samsung knows how they implemented their Exynos5 octa and since they never talked about how they implemented it we can't know for sure that it's indeed broken.

Anyway, keep up with your great work :good:
[Galaxy S 4 General] miahegypt:
so u still don't know for sure if it's implemented or not !!!!!!
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
Where do you people suddenly come up with these things? Nobody ever doubted the existence of the CCI in the hardware, it's there alright. The issue is that it's highly probably that its not working as intended.

**** me. I'm apparently talking to myself here. Figure it out yourselves.
[Galaxy S 4 General] gdonanthony:
[MENTION=4167023]AndreiLux[/MENTION]: ahhmm hows ur magic goin? i know u know what i mean :)
[Galaxy S 4 General] Gillion:
Denial is a hell of a phenomenon.

Sent from my GT-I9500
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
No one denies, the CCI-400 of this chip is indeed broken. But, maybe Samsung implemented it otherwise :)

We can't be sure until Samsung can confirm this.

In the meanwhile, anyway, we have the best performer around with one of the best battery life around (only 4 hours difference from the n2 3100mAh in GSMArena's test).

AndreiLux got 8 hours screen time in 1 day and 8 hours of the device recharging to 1% :good::good::good::good:
[Galaxy S 4 General] Gillion:
This part makes no sense.

Sent from my GT-I9500
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
Why exactly? Since Samsung must implement the big.LITTLE architecture with CCI-400? :confused:

Maybe they tried using the CCI-400 but since it was crippled they implemented it in other way? Only Samsung know for sure :)
[Galaxy S 4 General] Gillion:
We are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Sent from my GT-I9500

---------- Post added at 09:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

Sigh...

Sent from my GT-I9500
[Galaxy S 4 General] miahegypt:
and until now no one knows if its a hardware or a software limitation

the only information available is from "reliable sources" that's it's "probably" a hardware limitation !!!!

really !!!!!!???
[Galaxy S 4 General] SirCanealot:
Seriously, have you actually read any of his posts? I've been on forums all my life, almost, and AndreiLux fits into one of three categories of posters. Here's a condensed explanation of some posibilities:

1. He's an idiot who, for some reason, has good enough knowledge of the English language and the background topic to sound like he knows what he's talking about(edit: I'm reading one of these on semi accurate right now. They're very rare, amazing, and astonishing and the line between them and a troll is very small) ;

2. He's massively trolling us and is smart enough to get any with it;

3. He's highly intelligent and passionate about what he does, with at least moderate knowledge on how the systems work, why the systems are there, and why they work like they do. And he knows what the **** is going on here.

Please go and read his writings and then get back to me on which one you think he is :)

Ps, I have no idea why I just wrote that. I but I thought I'd say something constructive rather than sarcastic or mean.
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
I've read all the posts here about the problems with the Exynos5 octa :)

It's obviously option 3 but you can't possibly say that anyone but Samsung knows how they actually implemented the big.LITTLE architecture.

Yes, they should have used the CCI-400 but since it's crippled (and I'm sure that they know that too :p) they might tried implementing it another way.

It's a possibility, right? ;)

Even AndreiLux says so :D
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
There are 3 ways of implementing big.LITTLE:

1. Cluster-migration: 4 A7 or 4 A15 and not any other combinations.

2. Core-migration: Up to 4 cores working together with every combination possible.

3. Multi-Processing: All 8 cores can work together.

Only options 2 and 3 requires the use of the CCI-400 to be efficient enough. When AndreiLux tried enabling core-migration using CCI-400 he wrote that it didn't work.
[Galaxy S 4 General] BarryH_GEG:
From ARM...

Software can control the allocation of threads of execution to the appropriate core, or in some versions of the software simply move the whole processor context up to big or down to LITTLE based on measured load.

There are two software approaches to handling the CPU selection decision, described below.

In both software approaches, cache coherence is required to enable the software to quickly move execution from LITTLE to big and from big to LITTLE as appropriate. Cache coherence allows one CPU cluster to look up in the caches of the other CPU cluster, and full hardware cache coherence between the two clusters is key to making big.LITTLE software fast and transparent. Cache coherence can be provided by the ARM CCI-400 cache coherent interconnect or any interconnect that follows the AMBA4 ACE protocol.

big.LITTLE CPU Migration

- In CPU migration a whole workload of a CPU gets move to a differently CPU, once the OS detects it requires more or less performance. This builds on generic techniques in an OS to wake up and put to sleep CPUs in an SMP system. The key extension is around the detection that a CPU is running at maximum frequency while still requesting further performance and thus the workload needs to be moved to a ‘bigger’ CPU. Once the workload has reduced, it can moved back to a ‘smaller’ CPU.

big.LITTLE MP

- Task migration (aka big.LITTLE MP) detects a high intensity task and will schedule that onto a ‘big’ CPU. Similarly it will detect a low intensity task and move this back to a ‘LITTLE’ core. The advantage of task migration over CPU migration is that a system can benefit from all its CPU at the same time, if the processing demands are extremely high. For example in a 2x ‘big’ + 2x ‘LITTLE’ system all 4 CPUs can be used at peak demand times, where as CPU migration would only be able to use 2 CPUs.

Here’s a ton of detail on both modes…

big.LITTLE CPU migration - https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelArchived/Big.Little.Switcher

big.LITTLE task migration, see https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Big.Little.MP

I doubt any dev would be able to reverse engineer the enabling of MP without access to low-level code and documentation that's unavailable to them. But it's fantastic that they have the skills and devote the time to trying. The big ***** the devs have with Exynos is the lack of available tools because Samsung's comparatively closed.
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
I marked in red a sentence where they tell about the need for the CCI-400. As I said, it actually can be implemented otherwise as it's mentioned in the second sentence I marked (with green this time :silly:).

He tried to enable core-migration not MP. He simply used the code that is already there (in the kernel sources Samsung released) but it didn't worked.
[Galaxy S 4 General] BarryH_GEG:
But a couple of pages back Samsung was shown to have purchased/licensed CCI-400. Why would anyone assume they wouldn't be using it? The only reason to "build" vs. "buy" is if it's cheaper, better, faster, or strategic. Samsung going their own way after buying CCI-400 doesn't really meet any of that criteria. Especially when the whole chip is based on licensed code designed by ARM to "plug and play" with CCI-400.

Kind of circular, no? If Samsung didn't provide the finished code which is pretty clear because MP (of which core migration is a part) doesn't work how could a dev "finish" it without access to low-level code and documentation they don't have access to? Maybe Andre can shed some light.
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
Aren't you getting sick of posting random copied snippets?

There is zero point to this post - noideaforusername said the same thing. I don't think you understood what you're posting since you bolded that first sentence: There are three operating modes, the two you've posted are the two who rely on the CCI. I still don't see what you're trying to communicate here.

The chip still being usable as a whole without the CCI is completely irrelevant to the CCI being broken.

This is the second time I see this nonsense - Krait has a little to do with any prior ARM designs and calling it five year old architecture is just bull****. Did you know the A15 is based on the A8? Or that the A7's are based on A5's? Or that the new A12 is based on the A9? You have no idea what you're talking about. Architectural divergences started with the Scorpion cores and they both took their own path. Please read on some actual analyses before claiming such things.

What does this have to do with the discussion? Of course they'll bring out new cores. The A12 has only two licensees and it's a product that's about 12 months late to the game and will be out-shadowed by the A55.

Yes, that's the 5420 with a Mali T6xx GPU.

No it doesn't and that was nothing more than a rumour - it uses a Snapdragon S400 for all of its variants.

And? I think you're missing the deal here: It doesn't matter what all these companies license, they don't have a choice in the matter. Qualcomm nor Apple release their architectures for third-parties. ARM having partners adopt its products is as no-news as your average weather forecast.

Because shít happens. The chip has the hardware. It is not being used. That's the current reality of things, whatever the technical reasons behind it.

First of all, core migration is not part of MP.

Secondly, are all you people ignoring the "I went to ask one of the big.LITTLE lead software developers and been told its a hardware limitation on the 5410 and that their CCI is crippled, and I have a second source claiming the same" part on purpose? The evidence for the chip being broken versus "it currently not configured correctly or working as intended" is about 5:0.
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
May I ask you a question please? Is it possible that Samsung knows that the CCI-400 is crippled so they decided to use other interconnect part that follows the AMBA4 ACE protocol?
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
What other interconnect? As far as I know there is no such thing and the CCI is simply used as a plain bus without the cache coherency part. Another reason why Samsung's power claims are crap: The thing is physically there and being used, but without the feature that is supposed to make it special.

Edit: I'm not familiar enough with their general bus architecture so take the above claims as not certain.

In any case: currently our CCI is disabled: https://github.com/AndreiLux/Perseu...xynos-3.4-SEC/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cci.c#L194 else we wouldn't be able to even boot the phone. Considering this is a hardware configuration, it's probably useless to continue trying even if it might be possible in future versions of the chip.
[Galaxy S 4 General] noideaforusername:
So the CCI-400 actually works but it doesn't have cache coherent? Wow, this is really sounds wrong.

Why in the first place they put the CCI-400 if it doesn't have the cache coherence ability?
[Galaxy S 4 General] AndreiLux:
Why are people thinking they did this on purpose? "Broken" "Crippled" are just synonyms for saying it's not working as intended.

Now that the 5420 is confirmed to be coming out and is basically the same as the 5410 but with a Mali GPU and generally updated SoC, who knows if the 5410 will even continue as a product.