Underlying technology in the HTC Evo 3D - qHD, 3D, dual-core SMP

[Bhaanumuarti]

I speculate perhaps permanent clock of 1.5 GHz since he left in question and that was speed, and also from Samsung has just taken a blow to the GS2 1.2, I could see HTC want to maintain a competitive edge. I would also speculate that increased storage time internal 4 GB since it is a fairly random number (Phones usually have 1-8-16-32). An increase of eight would be awesome and an increase from 16 to 32 would be virtuous. What finally moved me most is the addition of a foot support for the battery cover, as it now is how many people are mad that they took it. All this is speculation, of course, but who says man cannot wait?

[switchblade327]

Thus a higher clock speed usually involves a higher voltage, which shortens the battery life and heat increase. Do not really know anything about the architecture of this processor and how efficient it is. Anyway I would not mind so much to see some data on the impact of rising clock (two perforations and the effect on battery life) and maybe have a user option to put it low or high, or something like that. I'm assuming that the crash on battery life is significant, but it could be a bad assumption on my division.

[BansiJ]

I think the 3D look to be a trick, I'm not sure to do all phones with this feature in the future, but even as a trick that I'm willing to try. The whole "3D in the home" market is still in the early stages and do not know if will have success, but one thing is certain, if you can make your own 3D content, then it is likely to be considered a 3D TV. I'm sure you will not be long before making movies software offers support for 3D media and could be the thing that really drives him forward, not Hollywood movies in 3D, but 3D movies of the parties in her son's house, days out, etc. At some point to see them in your phone is not good enough and then you might think a nice new gleaming 3D television.

[Antonio1]

My opinion is: Android has supported SMP since 2009, but do not know what version numbers corresponding operating system. Android supports multitasking; this should lead to smoother results, in general, dual-core, and a small one application to increase performance. But to say that Android is "written by a single core" seems a bit strong, man, that is built on the Linux 2.6 kernel, which is not exactly weak in the department of multi-core support.

[Ceesar]

I am a developer of Android. I would say the huge bulk of applications will benefit from dual core. No need to write applications specifically for two cores. The Android operating system take advantage of multiple cores automatically assumes that your application uses more than one thread. Current best practices for the development of Android depend largely substantive discussions. It is not supposed to lift heavy objects in the main thread, as this will stop the user interaction with the device. Android specific APIs have even made this very easy. Even if the application is currently running happens to use a single thread, if available, for example, the Pandora music playing in the background - that the process could generate discussion in the other core - making life easier in application is in the foreground.

[Kickapoo]

In the environment of Android, you cannot do any intense work in the foreground thread that processes graphical user interface; otherwise you will end up with super-responding applications. For this type, which are more or less forced to go multi-threaded? While the version of Android phone is used in the SMP, both cores are working on these issues separately, and therefore have performance improvements. It is true that most applications today do not use both cores at 100% all the time since the workload is not divided symmetrically, but still, a benefit is a benefit. Applications such as Smartbench 2011 (I am the author) is symmetrically divided the workload within the application - which currently divides the workload equal to 4 threads, thus Smartbench 2011 using the 100% up to 4 cores when available .

[Crespin]

The video is all over the field and processing sub-field - basically, you need to show a complete picture of the vine where the 24 or 60 frames per second found out. For the processor, performing calculations in 3D field and updates the screen is basically a kind of double of that burden. Because there is no such thing as a free lunch to do in 3D, the hardware can handle 720 - but when done in 2D can handle 1080p. Things in the motherboard can handle everything, but it seems that some compensation must exist for 3D support at this time, and offsets are in the 3D part, not the 2D. So for the accuracy of the final image that will be the actual screens used in the 3D Evo and feel and why, we'll have to trust our eyes to make the last conclusion on the answer to your question.