Kindle Paperwhite Microprocessor

[atleon]

Originally Posted by knc1

iMX508 - it is the only one with the built-in e-ink controller.

http://cache.freescale.com/files/32b...EC.pdf?pspll=1
Section 1.2: 800Mhz core.

Thanks a lot .

[Koko]

I'm also interested in the cpu in kindle PW. I'm currently using an kindle dx graphite and often do search in all books on the device.

I would be great if that could be speeded up. I'm considering an ipad mini, but their e-book app does not seem to have the ability to search in all books.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by Koko

I'm also interested in the cpu in kindle PW. I'm currently using an kindle dx graphite and often do search in all books on the device.

I would be great if that could be speeded up. I'm considering an ipad mini, but their e-book app does not seem to have the ability to search in all books.

Is there a significant difference between searching on your DX and on your Touch with the same set of books?

[Koko]

Originally Posted by knc1

Is there a significant difference between searching on your DX and on your Touch with the same set of books?

I'll try that the next time I get the chance. Currently another family member is using the touch.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by Koko

I'll try that the next time I get the chance. Currently another family member is using the touch.

When you get the chance to check, let us know.
That information may suggest what you could (couldn't) do.

[Koko]

Originally Posted by knc1

When you get the chance to check, let us know.
That information may suggest what you could (couldn't) do.

I timed 31 searches on the kindle touch (KT) and 31 searches on kindle dx (kdx) using a manual stopwatch. The words used where 'tante', 'apert', 'acrocephaly', 'myopia', 'amblyopia' and 'retina'. For each search a new word from the list was used.

Results: Using an paired sample t-test the results could not be said to be stastistically different (sig. 2 tailed=0,102) within a 95% confidence interval. The mean time for KT was 2,04 seconds and for KDX 2,32 seconds.

Here are the data:

Column 1 measurement number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

Column 2 word
tante
tante
apert
apert
acrocephaly
acrocephaly
myopia
myopia
amblyopia
amblyopia
tante
tante
apert
apert
acrocephaly
acrocephaly
myopia
myopia
amblyopia
amblyopia
tante
tante
apert
apert
acrocephaly
acrocephaly
myopia
myopia
amblyopia
amblyopia
tante
tante
apert
apert
acrocephaly
acrocephaly
myopia
myopia
amblyopia
amblyopia
tante
tante
apert
apert
acrocephaly
acrocephaly
myopia
myopia
amblyopia
amblyopia
tante
tante
apert
apert
acrocephaly
acrocephaly
myopia
myopia
amblyopia
amblyopia
retina
retina

Column 3: device
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1


Column 4: time
2,88
1,98
2,14
2,29
1,58
1,85
1,51
1,87
1,71
1,86
1,51
2,13
2,14
2,05
2,02
1,93
1,58
1,95
1,53
1,93
1,57
1,89
1,32
2
1,73
1,9
1,45
2,01
1,42
1,88
1,43
1,9
1,3
1,91
1,39
1,91
2,8
1,92
2,2
2,06
2,5
1,94
2,2
1,93
2,09
1,8
2,15
1,91
4,1
3,18
2,32
1,93
2,39
1,93
2,48
1,86
2,44
1,38
2,84
1,99
2,73
4,02

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by Koko

I timed 31 searches on the kindle touch (KT) and 31 searches on kindle dx (kdx) using a manual stopwatch. The words used where 'tante', 'apert', 'acrocephaly', 'myopia', 'amblyopia' and 'retina'. For each search a new word from the list was used.

Results: Using an paired sample t-test the results could not be said to be stastistically different (sig. 2 tailed=0,102) within a 95% confidence interval. The mean time for KT was 2,04 seconds and for KDX 2,32 seconds.

Here are the data:

You could preserve a tabular format if you use a CODE block rather than a QUOTE block:

 -------------------------------------------------
|  Column 1   |  Column 2   | Column 3 | Column 4 |                                    
| measurement |    word     |  device  |   time   |
|   number    |             |          |          |
|-------------+-------------+----------+----------|
|      1      | tante       |    0     |   2.88   |                                           
|      2      | tante       |    1     |   1.98   |                                           
|      3      | apert       |    0     |   2.14   |                                           
|      4      | apert       |    1     |   2.29   |                                           
|      5      | acrocephaly |    0     |   1.58   |                                           
|      6      | acrocephaly |    1     |   1.85   |                                           
|      7      | myopia      |    0     |   1.51   |                                           
|      8      | myopia      |    1     |   1.87   |                                           
|      9      | amblyopia   |    0     |   1.71   |                                           
|     10      | amblyopia   |    1     |   1.86   |                                           
|     11      | tante       |    0     |   1.51   |                                           
|     12      | tante       |    1     |   2.13   |                                           
|     13      | apert       |    0     |   2.14   |                                           
|     14      | apert       |    1     |   2.05   |                                           
|     15      | acrocephaly |    0     |   2.02   |                                           
|     16      | acrocephaly |    1     |   1.93   |                                           
|     17      | myopia      |    0     |   1.58   |                                           
|     18      | myopia      |    1     |   1.95   |                                           
|     19      | amblyopia   |    0     |   1.53   |                                           
|     20      | amblyopia   |    1     |   1.93   |                                           
|     21      | tante       |    0     |   1.57   |                                           
|     22      | tante       |    1     |   1.89   |                                           
|     23      | apert       |    0     |   1.32   |                                           
|     24      | apert       |    1     |   2.00   |                                           
|     25      | acrocephaly |    0     |   1.73   |                                           
|     26      | acrocephaly |    1     |   1.90   |                                            
|     27      | myopia      |    0     |   1.45   |                                           
|     28      | myopia      |    1     |   2.01   |                                           
|     29      | amblyopia   |    0     |   1.42   |                                           
|     30      | amblyopia   |    1     |   1.88   |                                           
|     31      | tante       |    0     |   1.43   |                                           
|     32      | tante       |    1     |   1.90   |                                          
|     33      | apert       |    0     |   1.30   |                                            
|     34      | apert       |    1     |   1.91   |                                           
|     35      | acrocephaly |    0     |   1.39   |                                           
|     36      | acrocephaly |    1     |   1.91   |                                           
|     37      | myopia      |    0     |   2.80   |                                            
|     38      | myopia      |    1     |   1.92   |                                           
|     39      | amblyopia   |    0     |   2.20   |                                            
|     40      | amblyopia   |    1     |   2.06   |                                           
|     41      | tante       |    0     |   2.50   |                                            
|     42      | tante       |    1     |   1.94   |                                           
|     43      | apert       |    0     |   2.20   |                                            
|     44      | apert       |    1     |   1.93   |                                           
|     45      | acrocephaly |    0     |   2.09   |                                           
|     46      | acrocephaly |    1     |   1.80   |                                            
|     47      | myopia      |    0     |   2.15   |                                           
|     48      | myopia      |    1     |   1.91   |                                           
|     49      | amblyopia   |    0     |   4.10   |                                            
|     50      | amblyopia   |    1     |   3.18   |                                           
|     51      | tante       |    0     |   2.32   |                                           
|     52      | tante       |    1     |   1.93   |                                           
|     53      | apert       |    0     |   2.39   |                                           
|     54      | apert       |    1     |   1.93   |                                           
|     55      | acrocephaly |    0     |   2.48   |                                           
|     56      | acrocephaly |    1     |   1.86   |                                           
|     57      | myopia      |    0     |   2.44   |                                           
|     58      | myopia      |    1     |   1.38   |                                           
|     59      | amblyopia   |    0     |   2.84   |                                           
|     60      | amblyopia   |    1     |   1.99   |                                           
|     61      | retina      |    0     |   2.73   |                                           
|     62      | retina      |    1     |   4.02   |                                           
 -------------------------------------------------

Also, because this is an English language forum, I "normalized" the decimal points to English (US/UK) format, and I added leading spaces and trailing zeros as needed for uniform consistent numeric formatting.

EDIT: By the way, search speed is not only dependent on CPU speed, memory speed, eMMC flash speed, and firmware version differences, but can be affected by number of background processes running, by services installed, by whether wireless is on or off, and by file fragmentation. Do both computers have the same hacks installed and active? And because of the firmware-controlled CPU clock speed governor, search speed could also be affected by charging status of the battery, and whether it is connected to a host PC or a wall charger. You need to control all of those factors to yield scientifically and statistically valid test results.

EDIT2: Your interpretation of the test results shows that despite hardware and firmware differences, the bottleneck is probably the choice of search algorithm and indexing method, and the speed of the eMMC (USB storage partition).

[knc1]

My take on all of that testing is that if there is not significant difference between the DX and the KT; there is going to be any significant difference between the DX and the Kpw.

Translation: The difference in advertised maximum core clock speed is not the determining factor.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by knc1

My take on all of that testing is that if there is not significant difference between the DX and the KT; there is going to be any significant difference between the DX and the Kpw.

Translation: The difference in advertised maximum core clock speed is not the determining factor.

They do not spend much time running at max core speed anyway. The specified amazon advertising and marketing metric is maximum time between battery charges, not minimum search times.

[Koko]

Originally Posted by geekmaster

You could preserve a tabular format if you use a CODE block rather than a QUOTE block:

I want to make a block like that

Originally Posted by geekmaster

[COLOR="DarkRed"]EDIT: By the way, search speed is not only dependent on CPU speed, memory speed, eMMC flash speed, and firmware version differences, but can be affected by number of background processes running, by services installed, by whether wireless is on or off, and by file fragmentation. Do both computers have the same hacks installed and active? And because of the firmware-controlled CPU clock speed governor, search speed could also be affected by charging status of the battery, and whether it is connected to a host PC or a wall charger. You need to control all of those factors to yield scientifically and statistically valid test results.

The "study" was only intended to see if there was a difference in search speed. You may of course implement the results the way you want.

These variables where controlled:
Both devices was freshly fully charged, wireless/3G off, no usb/power connected and had no hack installed or previously installed hacks. No search for a word used had been done prior to the testing. The gyroscope was 'off' on the KDX (KT has none).

But the devices where not file defragmented. I now post for the study checked the fragmentation on the devices it was 3% for the KT and 26% on the KDX.

Both kindles contained the same data in the documents folder of course. And the items where all indexed. Of 289 items total where 191 (1,37 GB) pdf's (not searchable inside). In total it was 2,24 GB of data in the documents folder. It was tried to find a mix of words that gave both many and few results.

The firmware was for KT 5.1.2 and for KDX 2.5.8. The KDX was the "grey" version.

As a side note the KT gave a little bit more hits than KDX sometimes. In some instances it was only 4-5 more hits, but mostly the same. For example the word "phalosyndactylies" was found by the KT but not on the KDX, because it was written as "acroce-phalosyndactylies". This word was therefore left out.

IMO the most important variables where controlled. Of course it's not an perfect study, but may at least be give an indication of the search speed if you plan to get a new device.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by Koko

... The gyroscope was 'off' on the KDX (KT has none). ...

Actually, neither device as a gyroscope. The DX and K5 both have an accelerometer, which can be used to control screen orientation.

If you search Mobileread for "KT" you will find that the vast majority of hits are for the "Kobo Touch". In this forum, we have standardized on the "K5" label for the Kindle Touch, for both our forum prefixes and for the index wikis.

Originally Posted by Koko

... But the devices where not file defragmented. I now post for the study checked the fragmentation on the devices it was 3% for the KT and 26% on the KDX. ...

Your FAT format fragmentation measurements do not show the REAL write wear-levelling fragmentation going on down at the flash media erase block level. Crossing erase block boundaries affects device timing (and search speed), even while reading. Over time, erasing and re-writing content on the USB drive would increasingly fragment the PHYSICAL storage erase blocks. On SSD devices, ATA secure erase and TRIM support can help "defrag" the wear-leveled media. But on a kindle, the only way to compare the speed of two devices fairly is when they are "factory fresh" (and not just reformatted).

However, as previously shown, the search result speeds seem to be primarily INDEPENDENT of hardware differences, including flash erase block fragmentation, and whether or not the K5 accelerometer was turned off.

I doubt that battery power consumption from the accelerometer (or even from the more power-hungry IR touchscreen) would affect search speed anyway, unless the battery were discharged enough to cause the firmware to change the CPU speed governor settings. Needless to say, these "modern methods" do no rely on SQL databases.

EDIT: So, I am staying with my previous conclusion that search speed is primarily limited by the choice of algorithm used to index the device content, and secondarily by the eMMC (USB drive) speed. There are modern indexing methods that can search "instantly" with virtually no overhead (other than the cost of initial indexing), with search times measured in microseconds instead of seconds, even when searching Petabytes of "already indexed" data.