In general, these platforms have utterly a lot in common. All stream Tegra 2 chips have been clocked during 1GHz per core, and– a OMAP 4430 in a Droid Bionic has a same time and– series of cores. Additionally, TI and– Nvidia both chose to permit a Cortex A9 ARM design. Very couple of changes have been done to this focus processor by possibly company.
While both Tegra 2 and– OMAP 4 have been formed upon most of a same components, identical to a ARM Cortex A9 core, alternative tools of a package differ. The approach a association puts together these system-on-a-chip (SoC) tools can essentially shift a knowledge for use–rs in a couple of ways.
The initial disproportion in in between OMAP and– Tegra is, not surprisingly, graphics estimate — yet it is a small startling how which foe plays out. Nvidia knows a graphics processors, and– a GeForce ultra low-voltage GPU in a Tegra 2 is a excellent performer, yet OMAP's PowerVR SGX 540 essentially beats it out by a hair. Part of this is due to a use– of dual-channel mental recall in a OMAP SoCs.
Despite identical claims as distant as video encode and– resolve goes, OMAP creates things a small simpler upon use–rs. Tegra 2 supports hardware decoding of H.264 video, yet usually with a right encoding. The ordinarily use–d tall form for H.264 will infrequently destroy to fool around upon Tegra. TI use–s a member called IVA3 which decodes a wider accumulation of codecs.
Since these chips have been being use–d in mobile devices, battery hold up is a genuine concern, and– this is a place which Nvidia has unequivocally come by for a use–rs. Even when a device is idling, a focus processor is handling to run a core functions of a device. These brawny Cortex A9 processors use– a not considerate volume of energy during idle.
Nvidia has opted to embody upon a SoC a apart ARM7 estimate core to hand–le a little of a "house–keeping" processes in a system. This is an comparison and– most lower-power core, yet it is enough to coordinate audio and– video processing, to illustrate saving battery hold up over a OMAP chips.
One final disproportion is of reduction significance to a use–rs of most phones, yet a stream incarnation of Tegra 2 does not await 3D arrangement technology. OMAP 4, upon a alternative hand–, does await this underline as was put to use– in a LG Optimus 3D. Nvidia hopes to have a next-generation (Kal-El) Tegra 3 out in a entrance months to get a square of a 3D craze.
In a end, there most some-more similarities than differences in in between a Tegra 2 and– OMAP 4, so because did Motorola confirm to shift chips? There have been visit rumors which existent LTE 4G mobile radios do not fool around good with a Tegra chipset. That would insist because a Droid Bionic was utterly redesigned, and– because a Motorola Xoom inscription (a Tegra device) still doesn't have a LTE upgrade.
Nvidia has attempted to repudiate these claims, yet usually not long ago has a LTE Galaxy Tab 10.1 taken Tegra and– crushed it up with LTE. It's wholly probable which a modems accessible in apportion progressing in a year weren't compatible, yet after models bound that.
Like any square of technology, there have been clever and– diseased points for any of these platforms. The bottom line is which both of these SoCs have been plain performers, yet they aren't as identical as a single competence consider during initial glance.
Patrick 11 Sep, 2011--
Source: http://www.digdod.com/why-nvidia-ti-omap-2-vs-4-and-bionic-droid-using-omap-1035947.html
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar