The hardware and software (AI) challenges involved in robot locomotion are worthy targets in and of themselves. Take a look at Boston Dynamics' work for DARPA and tell me that it's "superficial and useless".
Yes, the chip can go up to 533MHz, but that's no indication of what it's actually rated to be in the S4. (Much as the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 share a GPU but one of them has a higher clock than the other.) Samsung never released a GPU spec for the S4, presumably because it used this farcical whitelisted under/overclock system depending on what app you ran.
Sony's working on letting the PS Vita do this with PS4 games, however I understand that they're reluctant to turn games into vapour as it undermines the DRM restrictions against inhalation and/or respiration without the appropriate written consent.
Space exploration is the classic example of the kind of the kind of research that needs state funding: it's expensive, yet has hard-to-estimate returns that occur over an extremely long timescale.
There's a reason no private company has launched a planetary science mission, despite there being no competitive barriers to doing so.
Oh man, that's a fun question. Some googling suggests that just wafer-grade silicon ingot production is in the tens of thousands of tonnes per year, per factory range. So it might be reaching a megatonne.
Out of curiosity, what is it you think I'm a fanboy of? I mean I have a great fondness for nanoparticles but I don't think they're particularly relevant to this issue.
You stopped addressing my points and started just calling me names. I quite reasonably assumed you'd given up on actually trying to address the problem.
Your unstated major premise is "what Samsung has told me is accurate". This is a mistake. Samsung's explanation is a rival hypothesis to Anandtech's. At the moment you have to compare the two hypotheses with the presented data. That data tends to favour Anandtech's explanation.
Given that a single component might be sold to be used at a variety of clock rates up to its hypothetical maximum depending upon need, it's more normal these days to say you're over/under clocking relative to the device's maximum under normal operation. For example, the original PSP's graphics chipset could run up to 333MHz, but all retail units were capped at 222MHz to reduce power consumption. Modders figured out how to unlock this an "overclock" to the PSP to much more than its designed graphics performance. However it was still within the upper limit of the component specifications.
You come back to me with a GPU clock speed quote that comes from actual Samsung literature and not a benchmark app or a source-less web page, and then we'll talk some more.
Firstly, the comment in the article clearly got its clock speed claim from the article. Secondly, I think every one of those articles got the clock rate from a benchmarking application because Samsung didn't release a GPU clock speed and it's standard practice in the Android community.
"What the device is capable of" is a function of the device's current state - clock speed, cooling, voltages, power supply, etc.. You want to test the device in the same state that it will actually be used. A 533MHz benchmark is a good indication of what this particular chipset would be capable of when it is running at 533MHz. It is not a good indicator of what this chipset would be capable of if you clocked it to 400MHz, or at 1600MHz, or 3GHz.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't even make sense.
Competitive barriers. The legislative barriers are trivial or we wouldn't have almost entirely privatised satellite launches already.
What a douche! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqbklg4UwEs
The hardware and software (AI) challenges involved in robot locomotion are worthy targets in and of themselves. Take a look at Boston Dynamics' work for DARPA and tell me that it's "superficial and useless".
Yes, the chip can go up to 533MHz, but that's no indication of what it's actually rated to be in the S4. (Much as the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 share a GPU but one of them has a higher clock than the other.) Samsung never released a GPU spec for the S4, presumably because it used this farcical whitelisted under/overclock system depending on what app you ran.
...that's it?
Sony's working on letting the PS Vita do this with PS4 games, however I understand that they're reluctant to turn games into vapour as it undermines the DRM restrictions against inhalation and/or respiration without the appropriate written consent.
Space exploration is the classic example of the kind of the kind of research that needs state funding: it's expensive, yet has hard-to-estimate returns that occur over an extremely long timescale.
There's a reason no private company has launched a planetary science mission, despite there being no competitive barriers to doing so.
Oh, right. And it occurs to me that I'm not sure we still have one around Mercury.
Oh man, that's a fun question. Some googling suggests that just wafer-grade silicon ingot production is in the tens of thousands of tonnes per year, per factory range. So it might be reaching a megatonne.
Yes, we can all aspire to high quality commentary like yours.
Hello!
Out of curiosity, what is it you think I'm a fanboy of? I mean I have a great fondness for nanoparticles but I don't think they're particularly relevant to this issue.
Which ones?
You stopped addressing my points and started just calling me names. I quite reasonably assumed you'd given up on actually trying to address the problem.
Your unstated major premise is "what Samsung has told me is accurate". This is a mistake. Samsung's explanation is a rival hypothesis to Anandtech's. At the moment you have to compare the two hypotheses with the presented data. That data tends to favour Anandtech's explanation.
I see you've conceded the issue.
Given that a single component might be sold to be used at a variety of clock rates up to its hypothetical maximum depending upon need, it's more normal these days to say you're over/under clocking relative to the device's maximum under normal operation. For example, the original PSP's graphics chipset could run up to 333MHz, but all retail units were capped at 222MHz to reduce power consumption. Modders figured out how to unlock this an "overclock" to the PSP to much more than its designed graphics performance. However it was still within the upper limit of the component specifications.
If "saving battery" is the phone's state whenever it is not running a benchmarking application, it is the phone's normal state.
You come back to me with a GPU clock speed quote that comes from actual Samsung literature and not a benchmark app or a source-less web page, and then we'll talk some more.
Firstly, the comment in the article clearly got its clock speed claim from the article. Secondly, I think every one of those articles got the clock rate from a benchmarking application because Samsung didn't release a GPU clock speed and it's standard practice in the Android community.
Does it?
Provide an example of a thirdparty app running at 533MHz on the S4.
"It is supposedly clocked at 533mHz, which is more than double the iPad 4."?
"What the device is capable of" is a function of the device's current state - clock speed, cooling, voltages, power supply, etc.. You want to test the device in the same state that it will actually be used. A 533MHz benchmark is a good indication of what this particular chipset would be capable of when it is running at 533MHz. It is not a good indicator of what this chipset would be capable of if you clocked it to 400MHz, or at 1600MHz, or 3GHz.