text:
Qualcomm's Snapdragon 808/810: 20nm High-End 64-bit SoCs with LTE Category 6/7 Support in 2015by Anand Lal Shimpi on 4/7/2014 7:30 AM EST
101 Comments
Back to Article
CiccioB - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI can't understand how difficult is to make a "quick shift" of the roadmap when you are using ready on-the-shelf IP like Cortex A-57/53 while the rest of the SoC is the same as for previous projects you have thrown away. Reply
aruisdante - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkIf you think that changing the entire product roadmap for two years for an enormous, international multi-billion dollar company is 'simple', then you probably don't have much experience with big-business. Reply
CiccioB - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkActually this "quick shift" is going to require about 1.5 year on paper.
Qualcomm is going to use ARM IP for thier SoC cores, so past wrong choices that understimated 64 bit marketing power is an economic problem in those 32bit 28nm investments that will never see the light in, not really a time related one, as 64 bit 20nm ARM IP is aready available.
The shocking impact is to see Qualcomm not ready for the new 64 bit step after having dominated the 32bit market for some years now. And it is not only Apple (which races in its own market) their problem: nvidia and Samsung already announced their 64 bit architetures while Mediatek and other chinese/tawainese producers already have 64 bit SoC ready.
I already forsee that Qualcomm could not continue developing an in house custom architecture for main stream market when ARM architecture would have become too complex. I think ARM v8 64 bit architecture mark the sign. Qualcomm will probably create a custom 64 bit architecture for SoC destined to other (server?) market but it will take time (quite a lot) and competitors will not wait for them. 64 bit (marketing speaking) is now, and everyone is trying to catch the passing train. Reply
mrdude - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkOne of the biggest benefits the ARM ecosystem has is exactly that point: being able to react and adapt quickly by utilizing 'stock' designs with a significantly lower time-to-market. This model extends to the fab side as well.
Qualcomm likely (and perhaps correctly) didn't see a need to push for 64-bit designs so early. Apple caught them off guard and Qualcomm had to react quickly. If this were to hypothetically happen on x86, we'd be waiting another 3-4 years to see the big rival push out a competing silicon.
Hopefully Qualcomm has been working quietly on an ARMv8-a design. I'm eager to see what they can come up with. Reply
blanarahul - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkFirst 20 NM chips?? Reply
mikegonzalez2k - Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - linkThe purpose of a roadmap is the development of the tasks needed for the critical path. Changing those tasks completely modifies the critical path because other tasks may be dependent on the tasks which were removed from that path.
Here is a basic example of the Critical Path Method
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdDzybQ_9vM Reply
SydneyBlue120d - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkThis means the rumors of a Nexus 6 based on LG G3, running the 805 may be true... I really hoped to have HEVC on board acquisition for Nexus 6, but this will not be the case... Can You make a comparison with Intel Tablet/Smartphon SOC 64 bit proposition ? Thanks a lot :) Reply
antef - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkNot sure why people keep saying "Nexus 6". They name them by screen size, and I highly their next phone will have a 6" screen. Reply
antef - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkshould be "highly doubt" Reply
Aenean144 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkJust to be pedantic, Google names their phone whatever the hell they want. There's no correlation there. Prior to the Nexus 5, was the Nexus 4, and I'm pretty sure it's stretching it to say they called it "Nexus 4" because of its screen size. It's convenient to think of the number as the screen size, until it isn't.
And you already know why people are calling it Nexus 6. It's just a convenient way to indicate they are talking about the next Nexus phone. Not sure why people just don't say the 2014 Nexus though. Reply
niva - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkExactly, if they call it Nexus 6 then what will the next model be called? There's already a Nexus 7 out today.
They need to rethink the naming of their phone. HTC already ran into it with the HTC One, perhaps sticking to a year of release is the wise choice for each model. Reply
phoenix_rizzen - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkYou can't call it "2014 Nexus" because there are multiple Nexus devices (phone, tablet) in multiple screen sizes.
You could call it "the 2014 Nexus phone", but that's a mouthful and a half.
Google really screwed the pooch calling the tablets "Nexus 7" and "Nexus 10", as that just makes things even murkier. What happens when the 7th generation Nexus phone is released? Bad enough they have two "Nexus 7" devices as it is.
Naming for Nexus devices is a mess right now. Reply
SunLord - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkActually it will likely just be called the 2014 Nexus 5 just like with the newer 2013 Nexus 7 and the original 2012 Nexus 7. Google is jsut going to keep reusing the Nexus 5 Nexus 7 and Nexus 10 branding and just version it by year until they change from Nexus to something else. Hell they could just call it the 2014 Nexus and drop the number all together. Reply
MattCoz - Thursday, April 10, 2014 - linkIt's not stretching it, that IS why they called it the Nexus 4. Just like the Nexus 7 is 7" and the Nexus 10 is 10" and the Nexus 5 is ~5". Reply
phoenix_rizzen - Monday, April 14, 2014 - linkExcept that the Nexus 4 was 4.7". And the Nexus 5 was 5". Considering both of those round up to 5", the screen size was not part of the name for either of them. Also, considering the Nexus 5 is actually physically smaller than the Nexus 4 ... doesn't seem logical that the screen size would be part of the name.
The Nexus 4 *was* the forth Nexus phone though. And the Nexus 5 *was* the fifth Nexus phone. So, unless they change the naming scheme again (which isn't all that unlikely if you look at past names), it would be logical for the next Nexus phone to be called "Nexus 6", regardless of the screen size.
Nexus One
Nexus S
Galaxy Nexus
Nexus 4
Nexus 5
Either Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus are aberrations in the numbering scheme, or there is no "standard" for naming Nexus phones, and Google can name the next one anything they want. Reply
chazzmatt - Thursday, April 02, 2015 - linkturns out you were wrong. Reply
jjj - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkThe big story is how badly they messed up that they have to use standard cores.And acting fast by using standard cores is not much of a feat. It's also rather annoying that they'll have 20nm SoCs only in a year from now, guess we all kinda hoped for better than that.
It's also rather odd that they announced it so early and well before sampling.Would be really interesting to have more details on the competition's roadmap for next year. Reply
arnavvdesai - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI think the big reason Qualcomm able to move this quickly is that ARM already had a 64bit stack ready & a reference design. It is obvious that Qualcomm had nothing because it is relying on ARM for it's initial design.
However, I must commend them on swallowing pride & going with ARM as it allowed them to get to market faster rather than wait for their designs to complete. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI don't think it is a matter of pride. QC has been using many ARM cores over the years - just not for their high-end. I also suspect that beating A57 performance is a difficult goal to achieve, so it will take a lot of time (A57 has about the same IPC as Apple A7 but runs at twice the frequency). Reply
CiccioB - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkApple A7 cores are also massively big, a thing that a 3rd arty SoC producer cannot afford if not for very high end markets where the SoC cost has a meaning.
That's why I previously said that QC custom architecture will be available in some time from now and only for a specific market. On low end device you can't compete with Mediatek or anyone using ARM ready to use architecture. Reply
dylan522p - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkThat is complete bullshit. A57 has 20-30% IPC than A15. It doesn't rum at twice the clocks either. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkRead the article, Anand says 25-55% IPC gain. I'd expect further gains from 64-bit as well (A7 showed good gains there, and those apply to A57 as well). A57 will start at ~2GHz, but quickly go to 2.5GHz (twice that of an iPhone) and beyond. Reply
tipoo - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkRemarkable how little of the die the CPU cores use. Reply
ratte - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkFrom the article: "the die shot above is inaccurate" Reply
CiccioB - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkIndependently of the wrong die shot, CPU part in ARM SoC are only a small part of the entire SoC, unlike on x86 based SoC. Reply
extide - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkLOL, "unlike on x86 based SoC" ...
Check out a bay trail SOC -- which would be comparable to this one http://techreport.com/r.x/bay-trail-preview/die-sh... -- looks like all 4 CPU cores only take up about 25% of the whole area. Or how about the PS4 and XBONE SoC's ? Lol... Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkLook at Atom vs Jaguar or A15: http://chip-architect.com/news/2013_core_sizes_768...
We don't know the exact die size of BayTrail, but we do know the package size of BT (eg. Z3770) is 51% larger than that of its predecessor Z2760. That suggests BT is still significantly larger than A15 or other ARM cores. Reply
Speedfriend - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkQualcomm high end 64 bit SOC shipping only by H1 2015, with their proper version by H2 2015? While Intel will be shipping 64bit Android tablet and phones this year. This may be the marketing hook that Intel needs to get into the market properly. Qualcomm must be kicking themsleves. Reply
grahaman27 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkOr nvidia. Reply
CiccioB - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkMarketing apart, what are you using 64 bit on your smarphone/tablet for? 4GB of RAM? Super computing requiring 64bit math 100% of the computing time?
Intel is not going anywhere with their 64bit Atoms as it went no where with their 32 bit ones. They are simply too big and too expensive.
64 bit are useful in Server market and when mobile devices will start using more than 4Gb of RAM. Reply
Speedfriend - Monday, April 07, 2014 - link@ Ciccio8 We all know people buy computing on perception of performance and need. Do we need 8 cores, no but many markets demand it. The next step will be 64bit regardless of if it does anything. No-one in a shop knows how Intel's chips measure up against an ARM version, they just hear Intel and 64bit.
And Intel atom isn't expensive because it is free... Reply
extide - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkUh, Atom isnt free ... I mean I love Intel just as much as the next guy but come on, at least be honest! Reply
CiccioB - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkIntel chips cannot be cheaper than ARM based ones because for the former to compete with the latter a more advanced PP is needed and more advanced PP cost more per mm^2.
ARM based deevices market is a low margin gain market. Only those that sell a lot of devices at cheap prices survive. I can't see Intel in this market as it can't compete price wise (performance is not a issue here neither for ARm which are "fast enough" not for Intel that is "more than faster enough but less energy efficient").
Remember that no company that makes ARM devices has an advanced semiconductor fab to upgrade every couple of year. They pay 90 for an ARM chip made by TSMC and sell them for 100, making a net gain of 10. Intel already has a cost higher than 90 as for their more advanced PP and has to accumulate more money than those 10 for a new PP to stay ahead of TSMC.
On the same PP Intel SoCs have no hope to be competitive in any way, that's why Intel fastly brought Atom from being made by 2 older PP to the newest available one in 3 years forgetting about their Tick-Tock strategy used for other architectures where they are actually monopolist.
Where Windows application compatibility is not needed, Wintel joint-venture is also not needed.
Mobile market seems to be the strongest enemy of both companies that, look at their numbers, are quite behind all the other actors on that market and there's not really any reason to suppose that will change (it's easier for MS to take a part of the market being ARM compatible and offering services that can make some difference, but for Intel, what for their SoCs that have not proven to be better that ARM based ones for the last 3 years? And next years TSMC will have 16nm FinFet, probably worse than Intel 14nm FinFet but still good enough to keep ARM SoC ahead of any Intel SoC for few years, the time required to Intel to pass to the new PP after 14nm.. if they will really able to afford that). Reply
dylan522p - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkIntel offers Atom at prices about equivilant to Qualcomms offerings. Atom is fast as all of Qualcomms offerings and uses less power. They are behind on the GPU (solved by using the supriir Imagination graphics) and behind on modem. 16nm FinFet is 20nm FinFet but the small guys want to lie and pretend like they are even close to Intel. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkIntel's 22nm has about the same density of 28nm TSMC. Who is lying now? Reply
akdj - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkBoy, some things 'never change' eh? :)
We don't need 'quad/64bit/4GB RAM' phones TODAY...But tomorrow? I've got the 5s (iPhone, personal) and the Note 3 (business) handsets. Three times the RAM in the Note3, perceived performance? About the same. The 7.1 update to the iPhone has helped the A7's performance (or challenges of) significantly and as iOS continues 7.1.x optimization...and delivers their SoC this fall, I think it's quite obvious where they'll go. Higher DPI (larger phone) with more, possibly faster (DDR4 this year?) RAM. Not so much a boost with computational power in the A8 vs graphics. As they've done with the nMP,..moving forward, I think it's obvious where the 'horsepower' should be. Within another half decade (today's phones are faster than laptops in 2008 already!)---our 'phone' may actually just be our main computer. Displays where you need 'em. Plug n Play. The power, storage, memory and graphics all provided by the 'phone/tablet' displayed on your new Dynex $699 4k Best Buy Black Friday special;)
Point being, we DON'T NEED the power today....but in '07(iPhone) and '08 the Androids....that was just five years ago. Even two year differences in power, display technology and the graphic power of these guys.....just look at the Note 3 review and check it's scores in comparison with the Note 1 (hint, Note 1 is usual at the 'bottom' of each 'score sheet' regardless of bench test). So while today might not be the day you're folding DNA sequencing on your phone (while it's charging at night)---2020 may look VERY Different. ESPECIALLY with Intel on board and the phenomenal competition for SoC powered mobile, faster NAND, SSD & PCIe storage, more efficient and quicker memory, quadruple the pixels (4/8k). I'll never forget how excited I was to get my first 1024/768 color display so many years ago...today's technology is mind blowing (I'm 43 & owned an Apple IIe in high school with 5.25" floppies....cell phone wasn't a 'possibility' @ that point;)). My nine year old son has 100, maybe 10,000x that power in his iPod touch or his iPad 2 today. Cool time to be a 'geek' for sure.
J Reply
dylan522p - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkAtom uses less power and is cheap as Qualcomms current offerings. Reply
CiccioB - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkIt can be cheaper as you want, but that just means Intel is loosing money on them. More advanced PP and bigger die mean more cost. Price is another thing.
About consuming less than an ARM SoC, please, be serious. You can't really believe that all phone/tablets producers just discard Intel Atom "super power and efficient architecture" if that was true.
Simply, as proven in the past, power measures on Intel devices are a lie. Intel has always tried to compare its performance/power consumption with ARM SoC much older than those present on the market. See the old first Atom vs Cortex A8 when A9 was already well wide spread, see the subsequent comparison with A9 when A15 was already released, see the fact that now all still to be released Intel Atoms compare to A15 when A57 is round the corner and will surely be released earlier than any new Intel 14nm architecture... consider that Intel 14nm architecturew is going to fight against next year 16nm FinFet, which again, will be worse than Intel 14nm FinFet but good enough to put any ARM SoC buint on that PP ahead of any Intel solution.
Intel is simply a step behind in this market. The rate at which its products are brutally unrecognized as being good is evident. In the past 4 years Intel has sold as many SoC as Qualcomm has in possibily one months. Maybe less. And that only because Intel is subsiding projects and greatly discounting SoCs.
You can't really believe Intel can sustain an entire business based on more advanced fab with this selling rate at discounted prices. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkMediatek will have several Cortex-A53 and A57 based designs out by Q3 this year. Samsung is also not sitting idle, and although they haven't announced parts, they have publicly stated to have 64-bit SoCs this year (likely also A53/A57). So it seems likely Samsung and Mediatek will gain marketshare on the high end from QC. I don't see Intel gaining share as the mobile version of Silvermont isn't out yet and we already know A57 will be significantly faster. Reply
Speedfriend - Monday, April 07, 2014 - link@ Wilco1 Do you have a link to A57 versus Bay Trail/Silvermont? Samsung and Mediatek 64bit are likely to only be out towards the end of the year or early 2015 from what I have seen. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkNo, however we know A57 is ~50% faster than A15. And we also know BT is already slower than A15, eg. 2.4GHz Z3770 barely outperforms 1.9GHz A15: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/... (that's with BT using hardware acceleration for AES).
Mediatek says Q3 for some of its 64-bit cores, others are Q4. Not sure about Samsung. There is also NVidia of course, several benchmarks of Denver have been leaked, so launch must be near. As for the mobile version of BayTrail, the initial variants are relatively slow dual cores. I don't think they will be able to compete with existing 28nm Exynos, Tegra and Krait quad cores, let alone next-generation 20nm A57. Intel will need a completely new microarchitecture to compete or be relegated to mid and low-end. Reply
smartypnt4 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkThose are all excellent points, and you may very well be correct in all of them.
However, Intel's Cherry Trail (new microarchitecture codenamed Airmont) at 14nm is supposed to ship in 2014 for tablets and hit clocks of 2.7GHz (according to very, very sparse rumors). This will be what competes with the quad-A57 designs. No idea on Airmont's performance vs. Silvermont's, though (not even rumors). Intel's Moorefield (dual and quad Bay Trail for phones) will again be relegated to mid-tier status in Q3/Q4 of this year when the A57's launch. So while yes, Intel still will be substantially behind in phones, I don't think they're far behind at all in tablets, provided they can actually launch Cherry Trail in Q4 of this year, and provided Airmont provides a decent uptick in performance. But we shall see, I suppose. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkBased on Anand, Cherry Trail is a shrink of Bay Trail to 14nm. Obviously there will be some performance tweaks, and a frequency gain to 2.7GHz seems plausible, but I'd be surprised if maximum performance increases by more than 20% - not enough to compete with Tegra K1, let alone Denver or A57. A Q4 release means it will be in the middle of the big wave of 64-bit ARM chips starting from Q3, so it may be leapfrogged before it is even released...
2014 is certainly going to be an interesting tech year!
In any case, it looks like 2014 is going to be a very exciting tech year! Reply
smartypnt4 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI was under the impression that Airmont qualified as another "tock" in the roadmap due to Intel wanting to catch up, but I could be wrong there. Most of what I've seen seems to indicate that Airmont is closer to a "tock" than a pure "tick" in Intel's parlance. Then again, maybe I'm thinking of Willow Trail, which is the Goldmont microarchitecture, and is supposed to release somehow within 6-8 months of Cherry Trail. No idea, really. This fall is going to be incredibly jam-packed with stuff, though, what with Apple's new stuff that's rumored to use LPDDR4, Intel's Cherry Trail, Snapdragon 805 (not that interesting on the CPU side, but still), and especially NVIDIA's Project Denver.
In any case, I'm more interested in seeing how 16 Broadwell EUs compete with the Adreno 420 and Tegra K1 on the GPU side.
2014 is indeed shaping up to be a very, very interesting year. Reply
Gondalf - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkGoldmond, a quarter after Airmont Reply
virtual void - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkMost benchmark sucks, especially for mobile units where the ability to react quickly to short burst are way more important for the perceived performance of the SoC than the maximum throughput.
How do "we" know that A57 is ~50% faster than A15? I can "prove" that going to IA32 to Intel64 yields a 57% on Silvermont: compile this
program with gcc 4.8.1 with "-O3 -m32" and "-O3 -m64" on Silvermont machine running 64-bit version of Linux. The Intel64 version is 57% faster than the IA32, you can even get an additional 7% speed-up by using x32 ABI ("-O3 -mx32").
That is clearly not a typical performance increase, but Silvermont (for whatever reason) benefit more from IA32->Intel64 than the "big-core" models do.
If Cortex A57 is so fantastic, how come that AMD predicts its upcoming Cortex A57 microserver to have a lower SPECint score than Intels Avoton? Both are 8 core parts but Avoton has somewhat lower TDP.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7724/it-begins-amd-a... Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkAnand quoted 25-55% in this article. I expect good gains from 64-bit just like A7 in Anand's review. You're right that Silvermont will likely show a slightly higher gain from 64-bit due to being register starved in 32-bit mode. Although we don't have good comparisons today, it doesn't mean we can't conclude that A57 will be significantly faster given the fact A15 already has significantly better IPC than Silvermont.
Comparing SPEC is fraught with issues. Intel uses ICC which games several of the SPEC benchmarks resulting in huge speedups. While this results in great SPEC scores, it doesn't translate into real world performance (unless all your code is exactly like libquantum). So if you were hoping Avoton can somehow beat A57 then you're going to be very disappointed. Reply
virtual void - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkAh, so what you claiming is that SPECInt is not relevant because running real programs like gcc, bzip2, perl-interpreter are all things that can be "fooled" by "compiler tricks" while real benchmarks like GeekBench really show the truth?
You do realize that Geekbench include test like "stream copy" that look like this
#pragma omp parallel for
for (j=0; j<STREAM_ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
c[j] = a[j];
something that gcc recognize and replace with a call to memcpy()... A little more complicated one is "stream scale"
#pragma omp parallel for
for (j=0; j<STREAM_ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
b[j] = scalar*c[j];
where one for some reason decide to use floating point arithmetics (which do use x87-ops on IA32 but uses SSE2 on Intel64).
You can't be serious about Geekbench being more relevant than SPECint... Not that SPECint is very good at predicting how good/bad a CPU for mobile apps. Reply
Wilco1 - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkNo, I am claiming that SPEC comparisons are more compiler trick contests rather than real CPU performance comparisons. I know as I've been writing compilers and doing benchmarking for decades now.
If you compare SPEC compiled with the same GCC compiler with the same options used for ARM and Silvermont then you can get a good idea of the performance advantage of A15 or A57. If you use ICC than the 30-40% advantage it has on SPEC can completely hide any CPU performance difference. Then Intel obviously claims it has a huge performance advantage when it is solely the result of special optimizations in their ICC compiler. And as I said those special optimizations ONLY help SPEC, nothing else.
Geekbench does not suffer from this as it uses GCC and LLVM. Geekbench is not the best benchmark in the world, but at least it tries to give an HONEST indication of CPU performance, unlike what Intel is doing with SPEC. Reply
virtual void - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkThe difference between ICC and gcc is minimal these days, even clang is very close. There are odd corner cases one could use to show that any of these three compilers is better or worse than the others. You cannot be serious in claiming that ICC can make things like the bzip2, gcc-compiler and perl-interpreter go fast via "compiler tricks", ICC doesn't those program any faster than gcc and if it did, then it would just be a superior compiler as we are talking about _real_ programs that solves _real_ problems.
And come on, apart from Geekbench, point to any other benchmark/program where Z3770 does not clearly beat Tegra4 in CPU performance. How come that Geekbench, the only thing that seem to deviate, is the "one true benchmark"?
Ignoring other flaws, Geekbench and SPECint still both fail at being any good at predicting how good a CPU would be for mobile/tablet as they contain too much floating point tests (and Silvermont kind of suck at floating point by design, Intel know it is not important here and don't want to waste space on that).
I can understand that one would assume that A15 clearly beat Silvermont if one look at the microarchitechture, but people seem to forget/ignore just how much better Intel is at cache-design compared to any other CPU-designer right now. An we all know that cache is king! Reply
Gondalf - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkAs usual you are wrong. You have not a single serious bench proving your claims.
In fact Avoton is faster and cooler of the new Amd 8 core server puppy based on A57.
You can not judge a cpu with a shitty syntetic bench like GeekIdiocy......the name says all the story. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkYou're just deluding yourself. None of the Atoms have been successful in any way, Intel is losing billions of dollars a year trying to push them. We've seen it several times before with Intel talking up their benchmark scores only to show mediocre results when a tiny fraction of the promised design wins finally enter the market. What exactly makes you think it's different this time round? Reply
Speedfriend - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - link@Wilco
"No, however we know A57 is ~50% faster than A15" - have you got a link for this? Certainly in browsing performance ARM is talking about almost 50% improvement, but another slide I saw shows an overall score suggesting more like 20%. But anyway, I meeting with ARM management in a few weeks time, so I'll ask them.
The other thing you are forgetting is that Intel may not be using Atom to compete at the upper end of the tablet market, but Broadwell if they manage to get the level of efficiency improvement that they are talking about. When you have good quality fanless tablets or convertibles running Windows, the purchase decision for corporates will change significantly. as much as I love my iPad Air, it is basically a toy for me. I would dream of actually trying to do work on it Reply
Wilco1 - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkARM should be able to show you benchmark results, including comparisons between Silvermont and A57.
We're certainly at a performance level where you can use your tablet for real work. I'm using an A15-based Chromebook for benchmarking, open source development and serious build jobs. Obviously it doesn't beat a x86 desktop today, but I bet a lot of developers working on projects targeting ARM will start to use ARM-based computers when much faster 64-bit ARMs are out. Reply
Krysto - Saturday, April 19, 2014 - linkSilvermont is a full node and a half ahead of ARM in process technology, and it still barely competes. Not to mention Atom chips still aren't competitive at all on price, and Intel has to lose billions every year subsidizing them to make them look half-attractive to OEMs (which would be fools to fall for Intel's tricks, because as soon as Intel becomes stronger in the market - if ever - they are going to raise prices on them immediately).
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/15/5618126/intel-is... Reply
extide - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkSince when do we know that A57 will already be faster than phone-baytrail ? Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkSince last year we know the fastest Baytrail has about the same performance as Tegra 4. The phone version will be dual core initially and run at a lower frequency. Tell me, are you betting it will beat any of last years high-end phones? Reply
dylan522p - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkWhich is fine as Airmont will be out this year. Reply
Gondalf - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkFaster of Silvermont?? you do not know this. Without power constrains Silvermont is clearly faster than A57 in server SOCs. Unfortunately you are an entusiast and you have forgotten the thermals in your equation. A phone/tablet SOC can not draw power over a certain limit, even if A57 is faster than Silvermont (and it is not), it will throttle down all the time, like are doing all the A15 based mobile devices around.
Intel has the best 64bit core in this moment and it will gain a lot of market share expecially in tablets.....not having integrated LTE. Moreover there is a new a faster core on track for H1 2015, it is named Goldmont, likely a little wider than Airmont.
One thing is certain, Qualcomm has lost the lead over all competitors Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkWe already know A15 outperforms Silvermont by a good margin. A57 outperforms A15 by a good margin. So your conclusion is that Silvermont is clearly faster than A57? Wow, hear the expert talking. And if it isn't faster then we should just wait for the next one? Only in fan-boi world.
I agree Intel has one of the best 64-bit cores, but unfortunately for Intel Haswell is both to big and inefficient to be used in phones. Reply
Mondozai - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkMost tablets are still at 2/3 GB and that won't change any drastically in any short amount of time.
Add to that the fact that most Android apps are also not optimized for 64 bits. Plus, the big story now is smartphone/tablet saturation in the developed markets. The growth markets in developing countries don't need high end. They need smartphones like the Moto G for sub-200 dollars and preferably sub-150 dollars.
For these reasons, 64 bit this year is still in many ways premature. But Qualcomm moves ahead anyway because 64 bit will matter more in 2015 and onwards. Apple was early, but did it really make that much of a difference? Most I hear from even Apple's fanboys is a lot of complaints about memory leakage and crashes. 64 bit still isn't ready for primetime.
Also, when was Intel actually relevant in the Android space? They do okay on Windows tablets, but Android is gobbling up everything. It's not at 80+ % and it won't be long before it is at 90+ %.
Windows on tablets, and especially smartphones, is an afterthought at best.
And Intel is damned late to the Android party. Qualcomm isn't invincible, but people like you who obsesses over Intel are too narrow-minded in the strict geographical sense.
The big growth markets are in the mid to low end of the segment and Intel is completely creamed there. Even Qualcomm is struggling, but it is doing a lot better than it used to.
The major competitor to Qualcomm will be MediaTek, as they slowly start to shift their gears upwards in the value chain as their home base of China(even if they're a Taiwanese company, most of their sales are in China) is starting to get a lot more advanced. They'll be able to push up the value chain in China - they already are - while continue to do what made them so formidable in the budget segment for places like Africa, India, the poorer parts of Latin America and the Middle East as well as central Asia.
People in the Western world tend to be overtly focused on Western companies. Qualcomm does great in the premium segment and people have been predicting that Intel will crush everything for years on end now. They're still behind and will remain so. The major threat to Qualcomm is that MediaTek/Allwinner and other companies can move up the value chain a lot easier than Qualcomm can move down. Reply
Speedfriend - Monday, April 07, 2014 - link@Mondozai - I certainly don't obsess over Intel and am purely interested from an investment point of view. Which means I try not to get bogged down in the tech when it doesn't matter and look at how consumers react.
Mediatek has been very successful because not only are they cheap but they play the marketing game. They have been the prime drivers of the core race in smartphones. They may be able to push up into high value end, but I'll believe it when I see it.
As for 'Windows on tablets, and especially smartphones, is an afterthought at best.' I agree on smartphones, although in Italy and Spain, Windows Phone has overtaken IOS. On tablets, I think we are just at the beginning of the potential for Windows tablets. I work in a company where most people are obsessed with Apple products, we use iPhones as work phone, people bring iPads into meetings, but now we are offering tablets as laptop alternatives, we are going Windows 8 because we simply cannot use an iPad as a laptop replacement. If Win 8 tablets take off in the business market, then watch what happens in the consumer market as sub $200 Win 8 tablets launch. Reply
Krysto - Saturday, April 19, 2014 - linkYou're looking at this the wrong way. It's going to take years to move everyone off to ARMv8 anyway, because of the buying cycles and the product life cycles. So the sooner we start with ARMv8, the better. Also ARMv8 brings other big performance improvements. It's not just the 64-bit support that matters. Reply
wwwcd - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkwith 810 we have supercomputer inside a smartpfone box. Reply
grahaman27 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkHmm... Not sure if serious... Reply
Phill49 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkShouldn't the memory interfaces be 1x 64bit if there all 64bit architectures rather than 2x 32bit? Reply
Exophase - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkMost of the memory traffic from the CPU comes from cache line transfers, not individual register transfers, so nothing has changed there. A 2x32-bit interface is still more flexible, and could be better for sharing bandwidth between CPU and GPU.
The 64-bit chips will still mostly run 32-bit software for a long time anyway, and even 64-bit software will use a lot of 32-bit datatypes. I don't know what direction Android is taking with 64-bit ARM exactly but it'd be great if there's a mode that's like x86-32, where user space programs can use the 64-bit ISA and a more open address space while still being restricted to 32-bit pointers for most things. That'd still be sufficient for most programs, while avoiding the data bloat of needless 64-bit pointers. Reply
extide - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkThere is a 32-bit mode in ArmV8 Reply
Exophase - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkBut that's not what I'm talking about. This isn't about CPU modes, it's about software modes (enforced by ABIs/compilers/standard libraries/OSes). I'm talking about using the 64-bit CPU mode but not using 64-bit pointers in normal user mode scenarios. There are two advantages: one, you get access to the newer instruction set with more registers and 64-bit arithmetic and various other tweaks. Two, you get an entire 4GB address space instead of 3GB or worse, since the kernel would still use 64-bit pointers and live above the 32-bit address space.
x86-32 is exactly this, the 64-bit instruction mode but restricted to using 32-bit pointers. 64-bit pointers are a big waste if you don't need them. Reply
Wilco1 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkMemory interface width has absolutely nothing to do with the architecture bitness (which is just the integer register width). CPUs have been using 64-bit doubles and 128-bit SIMD vectors for years. Reply
Aenean144 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI'm just happy to see "20 nm" on an SoC roadmap. Haven't paid attention to Nvidia's or AMD's discrete GPU roadmap, or AMD's CPU roadmap, but with Qualcomm putting 20 nm out there for these SoCs, give me some confidence that it is coming sooner rather than later, though it feels that it's late already. Reply
mrdude - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI can't be the only one disappointed by the chart above. It's not because it's a poor looking chart or anything, but because it showcases how practicality is thrown out the window when it comes to SoC design for mobile phones.
I find the lack of a dual core A53 option with integrated Cat7 radio, great WiFi, with LPDDR4 built upon 20nm to be really disappointing. In my opinion, that would make for a perfect smartphone SoC, offering enough performance for the form factor yet with great power saving features and battery life. Instead we get chips on a lagging node (lower cost silicon for lower cost chips), quad and 8-core designs for operating systems that barely use two simultaneously and second-rate radio.
Smartphones are already fast enough, can we please stop trying to make them faster? And the cores aren't helping anything but their bottom line. Reply
jeffkibuule - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkA basic principle of CPU design is that if you can run it faster with only a minimal increase in power requirements, overall you gain more battery life (assuming the task needed to be done has a defined set, the CPU isn't running for infinity).
I do agree however that on the outside it seems Qualcomm is getting a bit core heavy, when you have to wonder which tasks can be subdivided adequately enough such that power savings can be realized. If a task must be single threaded on a single wimpy core out of 16 or so (taking the desire for more cores to the extreme). It's not going to be better than a single core of a larger dual core CPU. Reply
mrdude - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkIt's not just the core count, but the neutering of features and necessitating that only the highest ASP chips -- which would fit a 10" tablet better than a smartphone -- utilize the newest node available (timing and staggered release explain this), the best radio and WiFi. As a result, if you want the best Cat7 LTE you also need to buy the largest and most power-hungry SoC with cores that you won't ever use.
If these SoC makers spent half as much money on the Android platform and pushing forward a more comprehensive approach to multi-threading as they do marketing their useless core counts, we probably wouldn't have a reason to complain about wasted silicon. Reply
CSMR - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI hope that these are the chips put out for marketing purposes and there will be more sensible designs in future.
The megapixel wars and core wars, an the 64-bit and 4k bandwagons appeal to a lot of stupidity in the press and in buyers and companies follow that.
I like the 20nm and H265 support but 64 bit is irrelevant for phones and going beyond 4 cores when the 3rd and 4th are already useless is crazy. Reply
jeffkibuule - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - link64-bit ARM comes with an updated ISA which results in improved performance. This isn't just like x86-64 where a few registers were tacked on. Reply
chucknelson - Monday, April 07, 2014 - link> "I don't know of any other silicon player that can move and ship this quickly."
This statement is a bit too bold I'd say. While they seem to be "moving quickly", it remains to be seen if they can actually ship any of these on time. Reply
ahomad - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI don't think you made the calculation right. if the adreno 420 is 40% faster than 330 and 430 is 20% faster than 420 then if we assumed 330 = 100, then 420= 140 and 430=168. so the adreno 430 is less than 70% more power than adreno 330 not more than 80% you mentioned.
Anyway, this is the biggest disappointment in this otherwise excellent chip. tegra 4 GPU is in the same level as adreno 330, however, tegra 5 is 300% more powerful than tegra 4 while adreno 430 in only 70% more powerful than adreno 330, so tegra 5 is almost twice as (1.8X to be exact) powerful as adreno 430 and at the same time tegra 5 is supposed to be released ~6 months earlier than the new adreno, they should reconsider their chip if they want to dominate the market again especially that 2k displays are around the corner and there is a need for more powerful GPUs Reply
darkich - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkGPU in the Tegra 4 ~ 98GFLOPS
Adreno 330~115-148 GFLOPS
Snapdragon 805(Adreno 420)~ 25GB/s
Tegra K1 ~ 17GB/s
Snapdragon 805~1W TDP
Tegra K1 ~ 3W TDP
So, only Maxwell based Tegra should be comparable to Snapdragon 810, assuming that they manage to lower the voltage on the same level..but even then, the GPU *should* be in entirely other league than even the Adreno 430, so in a way I agree with you. Reply
ahomad - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkI completely agree with you regarding the battery consumption, but I was comparing the raw power. The GFLOPS isn't a perfect indicators of the actual raw power of the chip (it is one of the best though). but what I meant from my post is that Qualcome need to further improve their GPU. in the past, the jump from 2xx to 3xx was quite huge (over 3X if I remembered correctly) while the jump from 3xx to 4xx is not that big (less than 2X) Reply
ahomad - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkyou can argue that the market is starting to mature and we shouldn't expect 3X improvement every year (although the 3xx stayed almost 2years). However, if they want to keep donating the market, they should do something especially that as I said 2k displays is around the corner. if we compared the GPU vs resolution (ignoring all other factors) fullHD device with adreno 330 should perform better than a device with 2k screen and adreno 430 which is not very good. Reply
tuxRoller - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkIt's actually over 80% because you mixed up the numbers a bit. The 418 is 20% faster than the 330. The 430 is 30% faster than the 420, not 20%. So, is about 82% faster than the 330, which is decently faster than the T4.
Also, if darkich is right any the power draw that not saying much about the efficiency of the k1. I suppose that's the problem when you have to design a single arch that scales over two orders of magnitude. You have to make compromises at the bottom. Reply
dabotsonline - Monday, April 07, 2014 - link"Only the Snapdragon 810 has a hardware HEVC encoder however."
This is good. Unfortunately, the Qualcomm press release ( http://www.qualcomm.com/media/releases/2014/04/07/... ) states, "... 4K video at 30 frames per second... The combined 14-bit dual Image Signal Processors (ISPs) are capable of supporting 1.2GP/s throughput and image sensors up to 55MP." This is a shame: I was hoping for 4K HEVC recording at 60fps.
"The 810 can support up to two 4Kx2K displays (1 x 60Hz + 1 x 30Hz)... "
This is good. However, the press release states, "... external 4K display support via HDMI1.4." How can HDMI 1.4 support 4K at 60Hz?
Still, this is not good enough from Qualcomm. By the time the Snapdragon 615 and 32-bit Snapdragon 805 - let alone Snapdragon 810 - are released, Apple will have released the A8. By the time Qualcomm release their Krait-based 64-bit Snapdragon, Apple will have released the A9. Reply
darkich - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkGPU in the Tegra 4 ~ 98GFLOPS
Adreno 330~115-148 GFLOPS
Snapdragon 805(Adreno 420)~ 25GB/s
Tegra K1 ~ 17GB/s
Snapdragon 805~1W TDP
Tegra K1 ~ 3W TDP
So, only Maxwell based Tegra should be comparable to Snapdragon 810, assuming that they manage to lower the voltage on the same level..but even then, the GPU *should* be in entirely other league than even the Adreno 430, so in a way I agree with you Reply
darkich - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkoops, hit the wrong field, disregard the comment Reply
twotwotwo - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkYeep, so if an original 64-bit core is coming from Qualcomm, it's not coming until next gen. They weren't kidding about getting caught off-guard by the move to 64-bit.
On the other hand, this should be a nice bump, and sounds like folks in the US will finally get to see high-end ARM IP in phones. :) Reply
Laxaa - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkSo, get a new phone with 800/01/05 this year or wait for 810? Reply
bleh0 - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkmight as well wait for 810 unless you need a new phone within the next few months. Reply
Laxaa - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkI want a new phone, but I don't really need one. It's not like my 920 is broken. It still functions as well as it did when I bought it. Reply
sherlockwing - Monday, April 07, 2014 - linkThey been there before: Nexus 7 and Nexus 7 (2013). So I expect to see Nexus 5(2014) this year. Reply
Krysto - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkDisappointing, to say the least, that they are being forced to use stock designs even though they've licensed the architecture years ago.
It usually takes 2 years for a new core to appear (H2 2015 at the earliest), which means that if it's taking Qualcomm 2 years since Apple launched their ARMv8 core, to launch their own custom ARMv8 core, then they must've scrapped almost everything they had been working on for their custom ARMv8 core, and started from scratch.
Also, their GPU performance for 810 seems pathetic. It will probably be 70 percent of mobile Kepler...but in 2015. Reply
xilience - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - link@anand: Would it be possible to get a comparison article between the current 800/801 released architecture, the upcoming 805 architecture (likely slated for us in LG G3/2014 Nexus 5/Sony Z3), and this newly announced 808/810?
ie. As a consumer who upgrades yearly, is 805 worth the wait now that 801 is out? It seems 808/810 will offer a big perf/watt jump due to 20nm. Reply
Fidelator - Tuesday, April 08, 2014 - linkThis is a shame, the 805 should have been the High end SoC for the first half of this year while we should be seeing these by the end of the year, given the delays it is very likely we'll see these by the second half of 2015. Reply
iwodo - Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - linkLots of FUD or misunderstanding here.
A15 is NOT faster then Silvermount. Arch Vs Arch wise. And please dont use those stupid browser of Geekbench benchmarks.
A57 will properly be faster then Silvermont, depending on scenario.
So let's just say A57 == Airmont
And Goldmont, should therefore be faster.
It isn't fair when these comparison are being made in context of Power usage. Arm will definitely have the lead in the low end power usage. But things are definitely way better on the Intel side.
And Apple SoC is ... just a different kind of beast. Reply
kingblade20 - Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - linkOk, what about the "better cores, not more cores" video from qualcomm?
can anybody explain to me if we could really get true performance gains for using Octas against quads?
hopefully someone could help me with this. thanks. Reply
ClevelandRPenman - Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - linkThe shocking impact is to see Qualcomm not ready for the new 64 bit step after having dominated the 32bit market for some years now. And it is not only Apple (which races in its own market) their problem: nvidia and Samsung already announced their 64 bit architetures while Mediatek and other chinese/tawainese producers already have 64 bit SoC ready. http://qr.net/stx3 Reply
RonaldACoady - Friday, April 11, 2014 - linkOne of the biggest benefits the ARM ecosystem has is exactly that point: being able to react and adapt quickly by utilizing 'stock' designs with a significantly lower time-to-market. This model extends to the fab side as well. http://s6x.it/l521 Reply
vcarvega - Saturday, July 05, 2014 - linkGiven that this chip won't even release until the second half of next year, has Qualcomm fallen behind Nvidia? I have no idea how the two will compare in terms of performance, but Nvidia will likely have a second gen 64 bit chip out before this one even his the market. Reply
AllanMoore - Saturday, December 13, 2014 - linkI can't even care about 1440p on phones. 1080p @ 5"-5.5", anybody that says they can tell the difference between 1440p and 1080p at that size has either eagle vision or is holding the phone so close to their face that its an artificial use case. - http://picoolio.net/image/e4L Reply
sukesh - Monday, December 28, 2015 - linksnapdragon 810 use more memory than 410 why? Reply
jakoh - Monday, May 30, 2016 - linkHi,
Why were there no cache sizes reported here?
Also memory bandwidth.
Thanks, Reply


text:
Have an account? Please log in.
If you are a digital subscriber to Biblical Archaeology Review, you will be redirected to issue content. If you are not a subscriber, you will be redirected to subscription offers.
- Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.
- No password? Create a free account and download a free eBook.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
It's raining sharks at a golf course in Southern California.
At least, that's what golfers at the San Juan Hills Golf Club in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., might have thought after a 2-foot-long shark fell from the sky onto the 12th tee.
The 2-pound leopard shark was apparently plucked from the ocean by a bird and then dropped on the course, Melissa McCormack, director of club operations, told The Associated Press.
No one was teeing up at the time, but some golfers had just left the area.
Employees plucked the shark off the grass, stuck it in a bucket of "homemade sea water" using sea salt from the kitchen and then snapped a photo of it before releasing it back into the ocean, McCormack said.
At first, the shark didn't move, "but then it flipped and took off," she told the AP.
Distributed by LAKANA. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text: NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- American newlyweds have cleared one financial hurdle already, paying on average more than $25,000 for a wedding in 2012, according to WeddingReport.com. But right around the bend is another hurdle to clear, and this time mom and dad may not be pitching in. The hurdle is taxes, and not paying attention to how a marriage changes your tax picture can hit newlyweds in the bank account for years after a wedding. "When a major life change happens, taxpayers need to know it could impact their tax situation," explains Kathy Pickering, executive director of The Tax Institute at H&R Block ( HRB). "Not understanding the impact of the resulting tax changes to the individual and household can be costly." What steps should newlyweds take to maximize their tax situation in marriage, especially in those all-important early years of matrimony? Here's what our panel of experts had to say: Tiffany Washington, founder of Waldorf, Md.-based Washington Accounting Services The most important issue is to decide whether newlyweds should file jointly or individually. Most couples are better off filing jointly, particularly if there's a wide gap in incomes. It's important to get this right. When two salaries are averaged, the lesser of the two could sink the higher one into a lower tax bracket, saving both spouses money. Many people are aware of the "marriage penalty," a fine leveled at some wedded couples, but it applies only to couples earning two relatively high salaries (a combined income of more than $131,450), which might bump them into the 28% tax bracket. When a couple has that much money coming in, submitting separately could be the way to go, because averaging the incomes won't help. The other common reason to file separate returns is when writing off medical expenses. To be deductible, these expenses must add up to more than 7.5% of adjusted gross income, an amount that's easier to achieve filing solo. Lynn Ballou, CFP and managing partner at Lafayette, Calif.-based Ballou Plum Wealth Advisors Some good tax planning opportunities do exist for newlyweds. For example, if one spouse is self-employed while the other is a W-2 earner, you may be able to shift the income tax burden to the spouse with the systematic paycheck. Do that by increasing that spouse's withholding and live on the income the self-employed spouse brings home, thus avoiding the fun of estimated taxes. And if only one spouse has a pretax plan for paying for medical insurance premiums, you can switch coverages to that spouse's plan. It's also important to coordinate participation in IRAs and other retirement plans such as Roth IRAs based on income thresholds. You've got to earn less than $188,000 if married and $127,000 if single to be eligible to fund your Roth. Just because you qualified for the contribution as a single person, don't just assume you can continue to contribute now that you are married.


text:
By Attorney Keith Morris
Special to THELAW.TV
Estate planning is an essential tool for all adults. Having a will, as well as designating child guardianships and powers of attorney, should be done no matter what your age or health status.
Many people avoid estate planning because they consider it something for older generations, while others see it as something for only the wealthy. The truth is that it should be something you start in early adulthood, no matter how many assets you have. If you haven't started yet, it's not too late, and it doesn't have to be an expensive endeavor.
How much estate planning costs depends on the size of your estate, the market in your area, how long the process takes, and how many changes you want to make to your plan.
An estate plan for many people may consists only of a will. Drafting a simple will with the help of an estate planning attorney doesn't have to be expensive. It may cost you around $300-$600, depending on where you live. The smaller your estate, the cheaper estate planning will be.
For those with large estates, there may be quite a few more needs in estate planning. Setting up trusts and planning for taxes, for example, will be more complicated than a simple will and thus cost more. Getting experienced legal advice in these matters is vital. Estate planning attorneys work specifically in this area of law, keeping up with current tax regulations, and estate planning laws in your state.
Whether you have a small estate or large, paying for the services of an estate planning attorney will help ensure that your loved ones spend less time and money navigating the probate process later.
The author, Keith Morris, is an estate planning attorney in Houston, Texas.
Copyright 2014 by ClickOrlando.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
1022 E Pershing Blvd
The State Farm mission is to help people manage the risks of everyday life, recover from the unexpected, and realize their dreams. We are people who make it our business to be like a good neighbor; who built a premier company by selling and keeping promises through our marketing partnership; who bring diverse talents and experiences to our work of serving the State Farm customer. Our success is built on a foundation of shared values - quality service and relationships, mutual trust, integrity and financial strength. Our vision for the future is to be the customer's first and best choice in the products and services we provide. We will continue to be the leader in the insurance industry and we will become a leader in the financial services arena. Our customers' needs will determine our path. Our values will guide us.
Insurance, auto insurance, car insurance, life insurance, home insurance, loans, health insurance, investments, credit cards, motorcycle insurance, checking accounts, savings accounts, boat insurance, renters insurance, retirement plans, banks
If you've been to or used
Alan Ose - State Farm Insurance Agent, leave a review.
It's easy, only takes a couple of minutes and you'll help thousands make an informed decision.


text:
AOC's i2367fh: Thin, "Virtually Borderless", and IPSby Jarred Walton on 11/20/2012 11:05 AM EST
44 Comments
Back to Article
A5 - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkMy two work monitors have a combined bezel of a little over an inch - it's obviously not hard to get used to, but thinner bezels are always welcome in this use case. Reply
DanNeely - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkThe only advantage i see for fat bezels is that overlapping them can hide the fact that your desktop is warped, or different segments of it aren't co-planar with each other, and/or that the portrait/landscape detents on rotating stands aren't perfectly square and prevent 1 or 2 degree offsets from them. Warping is probably less an issue with cheap desks now with multiple LCDs weighing less than a single CRT and distributing the load more widely. Non-coplanar work surfaces are a major issue with cubical type desks cantilevered from the walls; although corner style desks can bring the same headache to home setups as well. The detent issue has prevented me from getting perfectly aligned multipanel layouts using Dell, HP, and NEC monitors. Reply
Mr Perfect - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkThis could be nice for a triple monitor gaming setup, but that would require Display Port with most video cards. Reply
sheltem - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkNot necessarily. You could use an active displayport adapter. Reply
kwrzesien - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkYou probably want two video cards to drive that anyway. Reply
DanNeely - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linknVidia's higher end Kepler GPUs will run 3 VGA/DVI/HDMI displays off of a single card. The 2 legacy output limitation/card limitation is only an ATI limitation now. Reply
Flunk - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkActually ATi cards supported this first, even some last-gen cards support 3 monitors. Reply
martyrant - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkEyefinity was introduced in the Radeon HD 5000 series, I believe. It might have been on their flagship 4xxx, but I don't remember--I know my 4850 did not support it. Reply
dananski - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkYes Eyefinity was introduced in the 5000 series. The trouble is you can only use up to two non-DP monitors with ATI Radeon cards. They only have two clock signals for the displays blah blah google it.
Having tried out Crossfire recently I don't think it will help as you need to disable it in order to get output direct from the 2nd card.
It kinda seems like AOC are missing a large opportunity by failing to give these monitors DP - no one in the ATI camp are going to be able to use more than two without active (read expensive) converters, yet the screens are obviously designed to be tightly packed and used with Eyefinity :S
I think lack of DP and the landscape-only stand has put me off this one, but I'll be very interested in any variations on this theme as it clearly has a lot of good points too. Reply
martyrant - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkgo back and re-read the article...this was a bunch of hoo-haw because of misinformation...the title shouldn't even read "virtually"...it is "borderless appearance" when the monitor has no signal to it (OFF).
So...this whole little blip about this monitor was pointless besides getting revenue for anandtech (not that I mind, I love this site).
It has NO VESA MOUNTS, only legacy/HDMI inputs (no DVI or DP is a huge, huge kick in the face--I can see leaving DP out on a monitor this cheap, but DVI should be mandatory (as it has been for YEARS))....useless for multi-monitor setups compared to other options. Reply
cimerrone - Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - linkHi, at least from the user manual (whose link) is provided in the above article says DVI is supported. Reply
p05esto - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkI really like the look of that. I hope more monitors get this slim and sleek (and IPS and 27" please). Reply
creed3020 - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkAs a dual monitor at work and home I can certainly appreciate this. The setup at work has 4:3 monitors and the bezel is 1cm for a combination of 2cm inbetween the two 19.2" units. I'd love to move to widescreen and these would work but I need DVI!
At home I have two 20" widescreen, one being in portrait position so this new guy doesn't work out as a replacement for that unit but sure would be a nice drop-in replacement for my landscape oriented Acer that is the main stage.
Time to see if others follows suite, hopefully this is a the beginning of a new trend in 2013. Reply
JNo - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkThe Gallery doesn't seem to be working for me (thumbnails but no pics)
Given that this seems good for multi monitor it's bizarre that there are no VESA mounts as they'd look super good on custom multi monitor stands... Reply
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkFixed gallery -- I'll have to email our IT guy about this; it seems like any spaces in the image names caused issues. Reply
JuneBugKiller - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkThe gallery didn't work for me in Opera but worked in Internet Explorer 9. Reply
JonnyDough - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkI would buy one right now if they had a higher refresh rate and lower response time. Reply
A5 - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkUh, not happening on a IPS monitor for $190. Maybe $490... Reply
UpSpin - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkI doubt that the panel is edge to edge with the frame. I doubt that the marketing images are real ones.
They're probably misleading, just as the pictures of early 'borderless' monitors.
If you take a look at the specifications, and let Google translate it for you, you'll find:
Dimensions (monitor) 531.4 × 394 × 120.6
Viewing area 509.2 (H) x 286.4 (V) mm
So the panel has a width of 509mm, the monitor a width of 531mm, this gives us a boder of 1cm on each side.
The term boderless only means: The front glass is till the edge. (The same other 'borderless' monitors use the term borderless)
The annoying part: the display renders make the customer believe that the panel is till the border, which is wrong!
A borderless panel is not easy to build, and probably wouldn't cost as little as $189. Reply
nathanddrews - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkYeah, it's getting annoying. The worst part is when reputable tech sites headline it with the marketing title instead of dispelling the myth up front. The title could have easily read "AOC's i2367fh: Thin, Near Borderless, and IPS"
To me, the best news here is a very thin IPS 1080p monitor that looks fantastic. However, I'm still in love with my FW900, so it's going to take one hell of an LCD to make me switch as my primary.
Wake me up when we have native 120Hz 4K, please. ;-) Reply
UpSpin - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkAs you said, the worst part is that reputable tech sites post false facts.
AOC also never said that the panel is borderless. If you look closely they always say ' borderless appearance'.
But all in all, those marketing images are highly misleading (maybe because the person responisble for the advertising misunderstood the term 'borderless appearance', too) and probably worth a lawsuit.
AT should be ashamed of this article, cheap misleading advertising. Reply
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkIf it is indeed false advertising and they just have edge-to-edge glass, then I really screwed up. Sadly, I can't find any real pictures of the display. What the press release says is: "The 23-inch IPS display has a 2mm bezel that gives the monitor a sleek, borderless appearance." 2mm is virtually borderless, but if it's 2mm to the glass and then and inch to the actual visible pixels... well, don't buy it! I'm just happy to see IPS and a nice looking industrial design in a display that costs under $200. Reply
jtemplin - Saturday, December 01, 2012 - linkI'm probably just late to the game (edits to the article), but I don't find the borderless claim from AT misleading as the headline has borderless in quote marks as if to lampoon. (as another poster mentioned but folks seemed to ignore) Reply
jackstar7 - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkIf they figured out all this but could make it 120Hz, I'd be cheering. Reply
cosmotic - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkHigher resolution please! Reply
fnord123 - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkYes, for the love of god, monitor manufacturers PLEASE GET US OUT OF THE 1080P GHETTO. Pixels get pretty big on a 23" with only 1080P, really big with 24", and stupidly ridiculously big on anything > 24" with only 1080P.
Please make a monitor like this with at least 1200 vertical pixels and I will gladly pay $250 or $300 each and buy two. Reply
BrazenRain - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkI would definitely buy it if they cut out the gray bar for the initial 'picture floating in space' effect Reply
martyrant - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkI don't see any holes for mounting this thing in any of the pictures. Not worth snagging on that point alone, but the fact that it's only video ports are VGA (legacy, don't care) and 2xHDMI (great, but 1 is fine for a monitor). The complete lack of DVI makes this not appealing to the multi-monitor users of the world. I have run 3 monitors since Eyefinity's inception (am currently on team green, though) and have been doing so with 2xDVI + 1 Active DisplayPort to DVI adapter.
You would have to buy DVI or DP to HDMI adapters for this to work...and you'd need at least 2 of them.
Great to see borderless IPS at a cheap price, but the designers here obviously have no clue what is going on when it comes to I/O or where people actually put their "multi monitor" setups. Reply
aliasfox - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - link- I like the aesthetics of this monitor, but why are the HDMI ports positioned horizontally? I'd prefer them facing down so it's easier to push the monitor up against a wall without putting extra stress on the cable (or getting right angle cables).
- Is this an eIPS or an sIPS display? eIPS is much nicer than most TNs and sIPS isn't always noticeable over eIPS, but it would be nice to know. Related (I guess?) would be whether this is a 6 or 8bit panel.
- Missing DisplayPort or DVI.
I'm considering getting a NEC 23" 1080p display to mirror my HDTV when I'm not sitting in front of it, this would be a nice consideration as well. But as I'd want to use this for a little bit of photo work too, I think it would be great to have an accurate monitor, hence the NEC. Also, with DVI, DP, and VGA connections, I can at least natively plug all of my computers in (an old Power Mac, a Mac Pro, and an HP EliteBook). Too bad the NEC's $100 more and not friendly aesthetics-wise. Reply
DanNeely - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkThe horizontal ports were probably engineers false optimizing by making swapping cables by reaching behind the screen as easy as possible. The panel itself is almost certainly eIPS; the price is too low for anything else. Reply
lmclaurin - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - link
http://www.aocmonitorap.com/root/kr/product_displa... Reply
ajp_anton - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkWould it be possible to remove the plastic casing to shave off another 1mm per edge? Of course ignoring warranty and be careful not to short circuit anything...
With 2mm edges we still get 4mm gaps between monitors. Removing 1mm of plastic, assuming it's that thick, we're down to 2mm gaps. Reply
kwrzesien - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkSo you can finally do a six monitor EyeFinity setup if the top three panels are mounted upside-down? Reply
mxnerd - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkhttp://t17.techbang.com/topics/17294-new-equipment...
I think it's not real borderless. It's just hiding the border behind the glass. Reply
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkThanks -- updating the content with your link! Reply
martyrant - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkyeah...this was a bunch of hype for nothing. more research next time please! Reply
martyrant - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkYou should use "Borderless Appearance" just as their marketing apparently said--because this monitor only appears borderless when it is OFF, with no display...
It is in no way "virtually borderless" Reply
LauRoman - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkAOC why u no vesa if borderless? Reply
Drizzt321 - Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - linkI'm with you on that. Even though it's not true borderless, where's my VESA mount?! It still looks great from the photos, I'd probably go out and buy 2, maybe 3 of these given how inexpensive they are. Although at 1080p it's pushing it on a 32", but I'd still probably do it. Reply
bigboxes - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkNo VESA is a deal killer for me. Reply
Peanutsrevenge - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - linkI'm sure there's a demand for thin bezels for multi-monitor users, I know 3 people (out of my small group of people) that use/want multi monitors for both gaming and business use.
The bezels get in the way,just a shame this is another 'fake' one like the LG IPS7.
Come on manufacturers sort your selves out, I;m sure they'll be a nice high profit margin for a year or two. Reply
Pantsu - Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - linkAs people have already mentioned, the display area doesn't reach the physical bezel. The AOC uses the same LG panel as the IPS237L. Both companies are misleading customers by showing renders with no bezels, even though they never directly state that there actually is a 1 cm bezel around the display area.
It's still a decently thin bezel though, and would probably be an ok display for a landscape eyefinity setup. It's just disappointing how these companies still haven't figured out how to make a proper eyefinity monitor with vesa support and thin bezels. Only Samsung has it's old ridiculously expensive eyefinity sets that were released when Eyefinity was first released. All the new thin bezel monitors are crappy "design" monitors with unusable stands. Reply
Spoelie - Thursday, November 22, 2012 - linkStill no monitors available with the right combination of features
* 100hz
* Static contrast ratio of at least 1000:1 over all brightness levels
* Very low input lag
* Thin bezels
* Factory calibrated (if possible, but no deal breaker)
They can ditch the inbuilt scaler, usb hub, speakers or whatever - don't use don't care. I would gladly pay more than double for such a monitor.
Right now one can only buy a monitor with any 1 or 2 (but not all) of the above.
Also, can't find any article that compares inputs for input lag (does vga vs hdmi vs displayport make a difference?). Reply
finbarqs - Friday, December 07, 2012 - linkin the *update* that jarred posts shows the box of the advertisement indicating it's "edge to edge" but yet during the testing it isn't... talk about false advertising... Reply


text:
Last Light - Mute Swan 8x10
painting by artist George Lockwood
10 in X 8 in (25.4 cm X 20.3 cm)
This painting is available directly from the artist.
More Paintings by George Lockwood
More art in Today's New Paintings
Keyword Tags
george george lockwood last light lockwood muted painting small swan
link to us - subscribe - about - contact us - press room - login
The Daily Painters Art Gallery - www.dailypainters.com
© 2017 Daily Painters Gallery. All artwork is copyrighted by the individual artists.
Images may not be reproduced without the permission of the artist.


text:
2007 Travel Supreme
Select Series M-45RB14-500hp
|Research another motorhome
|Truck Deals, Pricing and Values
Floor PlanPrint
RVs for Sale
RV Insurance
Sell your RV
Rent Your 2007 Travel Supreme
Make thousands of dollars renting your RV to people in your area. See how much you can make
Try before you buy! Search RV rentals here


text: PORTLAND, Ore. ( TheStreet) -- This is a terrible time to buy a car, unless you're willing to subject yourself to the automotive Black Friday that is February. It's not that Presidents Day is such an overwhelmingly great time to buy a car, but it's the best time during an especially bleak period. The folks at Lifehacker argue that the best time to get out there is in September and October, when the new models are just coming in and dealers are in a rush to get old models off the floors and lots. If you missed that, the folks at AOL Cars were of the belief that the best time to buy was in December, when dealers needed to make end-of-year sales quotas and were willing to offer rebates and discounts as high as 30%. The numbers supported it, as auto sales increased 9% in December and helped automakers sell 14.5 million cars in 2012, up 13.4% from 2011. It still holds true that any time the weather gets gray and wet and dealerships and lots empty out is the best time to make a deal. That's not going to be true for much longer, though, as income tax rebates are trickling in and dealers will be in no mood to trim prices. If you're hell-bent on braving the crowds for Presidents Day sales -- especially to pick up an SUV before the winter subsides -- there are still a few relative bargains out there. We consulted with the folks at auto pricing site TrueCar and found five vehicles worth spending a few thousand Washingtons and Lincolns on:


text:
All Boots Ship Free (more...)
- Handcrafted in the USA
- Full grain leather
- Bent Rail Collection
- 11" shaft
- Roundtoe
- Single stitched welt
- Detail stitch pattern on shaft
- All directional durable 10 iron performance rubber outsole
- Low block walking heel 1 3/8"
- Spur ridge
- J-Flex comfort system insole
Expect nothing but the best from these Justin Men's Bent Rail America Western boots. Handcrafted in the USA these boots are made by skill craftsman and with quality materials. The full grain leather and durable performance rubber outsole create a durable and long lasting boot that provides superior comfort with the J-Flex comfort system and cushioned midsole. The round toe, 11" shaft height, and low heel provide a comfortable and stable atmosphere for long hard hours on your feet and in the saddle. Pair these boots with you jeans and you will be ready to take on the day in comfort and style.
Justin Boots has set the standard for boots of the west making some of the most durable and comfortable men's, women's and kids' boots around. You can count on Justin for great western, casual and original work boots. With the finest leathers and the latest styles in western boots, Justin will always supply the best. Every pair of Justin Boots ever made is built with care and represents the hard work and dependability that won the west. In 130 years of existence men, women and children have been wearing the Justin Boots as a salute to independence and reliability. These boots are for the cowboy and cowgirl in all of us.
With unique styles like the Stampede, George Strait, Ropers and Westerns, Justin Boots continues to lead the way in boot making. The Justin Boots heritage continues to innovate with modern technology like their patented Grip-on-Demand, J-Flex Comfort System and JST while keeping the Justin Boots mystique. So whether you are a Bent Rail fan or a Tekno Crepe fan, you are guaranteed to find the right western boot for you. Check out our selection of Justin Boots and fall in love today.