4 ms·
I think if you're buying phones based on # of cores or Ghz, you're basing purchases on the wrong thing. If you want to buy a smartphone based on the fact that
by cromwellian 13y ago
I think if you're buying phones based on # of cores or Ghz, you're basing purchases on the wrong thing.
If you want to buy a smartphone based on the fact that it has 4 ARM cores, you are buying on specs, not on actual delivered capability, and those extra cores may very well be eating up more power and more die space for no reason.
(I'm not talking about Moto X's low-power DSP cores, I'm talking about having 4 Krait or ARM 15 cores)
GPU cores are different because GPU workloads are automatically parallelizable, but then again, you only need as many GPU cores as it takes to drive average workloads at the given pixel density. It makes no sense to include enough GPU to render a game at 250 frames per second. Developers are most likely not going to spend time optimizing a game for a high end GPU like it was some kind of console in a fragmented market like Android.
Point is, one should look at these phones from a practical standpoint and ignore the spec sheets. Does it take good pictures? Does it feel fast? Does the screen look good? Does the battery last long? Does it feel good to hold and lightweight? Does it do cool stuff that makes you more productive, etc.
If you buy phones on spec alone you may end up with a POS that looks good on paper but is irritating to use.
Take the Galaxy S4, sure, on paper and benchmarks (some of which are cheats), it looks great. But how often are those peak rates hit? How much Android software really takes advantage of the full power of the device? How much battery life is sacrificed, or size?
You could say that the screen or memory capacity might be objectively better, but again, how much of a price in battery life are you paying for those displays?
Also, on customization, consider that Motorola is going to build and ship, to you, a phone in 4 days. Maybe you don't care about any of the color options, but you have to admit, being able to assemble and ship a phone to you with a 4-day turnaround is impressive and is a manufacturing capability that is sure to useful for other things in the future.
- uncoder0 13y agoWho is complaining about the specs? I seriously doubt many people, even in these parts, buy phones based on the number of cores in the cpu or gpu alone. The big problem I see with the Moto X is the price. A mid-range phone should not be 550 off-contract. I was seriously expecting a $299-349 price for this kind of device. Maybe we will see that with the Play edition? I doubt it though.
- nevlev 13y agoWhere did you hear the 550 off-contract price? I thought that hadn't been announced.
- ok_craig 13y agoBasically every single comment on /r/android about this phone is about how the specs are not high enough to justify the price. It's kind of disappointing and amazing.
- batiudrami 13y agoThey are right though - spec for spec, this phone is priced much higher than phones with equivalent components. Whether or not that matters is yet to be determined, but we do know that in the past, Android handsets have dated fairly badly, so specs are something that have to be taken into consideration, even if the handset feels good now. The high cost is a result of having it made in the USA, no doubt.
- threeseed 13y agoGo spend any time on Reddit, Engadget, Verge etc and 99% of comments will centre around specs. It's hard not to when it is often the only thing differentiating one Android phone from another.
- cromwellian 13y agoNothing official is announced. The Nexus 4 was launched @ $199 on contract too, and $299 off contract. That's a $100 subsidy. How do we know what the subsidy for the Moto X is?
- uncoder0 13y agoThe Verge is claiming a confirmed price of $575 off contract locked to AT&T. http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/1/4579278/google-play-edition-moto-x-announced-coming-soon http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/1/4579278/google-play-edition...
- rogerchucker 13y agoNeed the usual disclaimer that you're a Googler :P