View Single Post
Old 04-28-2020, 08:34 PM   #35
binaryhermit
Grand Sorcerer
binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.binaryhermit ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
binaryhermit's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,732
Karma: 20469902
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Lockport, IL
Device: Kindle PW4, Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tar View Post
Back to the topic, I was wondering:


Does anyone have a guess at how these eight cores compare to the CPU of the original A5? In terms of processing power and energy efficience in particular.
T610 is a new chipset, but the ARM Cortex A75 and A55 cores are not. It should be possible to determine the expected performance of the CPU even before the benchmarks, to a degree.
Looks like the T610 should be faster than the Snapdragon 439 in the A5C, CPU-wise, at least at its peak.
I mean, the 6 little cores on the T610 should each be faster than one of the 8 cores on the 439.


Not sure how badly either one would be affected by thermal throttling, and not even gonna touch GPU performance with a 10 foot pole here.

But given the limitations of eInk, it's unlikely GPU speed is terribly relevant here. And I'd argue midrange mobile CPUs got more or less good enough speed-wise years ago. Like, my Moto G5+ with a Snapdragon 625 was more than fast enough.
binaryhermit is offline   Reply With Quote