maverick788us
|
2011-01-21
, 13:23
|
Posts: 215 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
|
#111
|
|
2011-01-21
, 13:37
|
Posts: 28 |
Thanked: 42 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Germany
|
#112
|
|
2011-01-21
, 14:03
|
Posts: 123 |
Thanked: 122 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#113
|
|
2011-01-21
, 14:06
|
|
Posts: 1,839 |
Thanked: 2,432 times |
Joined on May 2009
|
#114
|
high end handsets like N900, N9 are designed for technical enthusastics like us, so the CPU Architecture definately matters
|
2011-01-21
, 14:19
|
Posts: 44 |
Thanked: 13 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#115
|
... I don't think that a crappy 1,5 GHz Atom would decode 1080p in realtime at all - A Cortex A9 does this without really using the 2 ARM cores :P
|
2011-01-21
, 14:30
|
Posts: 523 |
Thanked: 292 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#116
|
Guess that's just a rumour, would be pretty stupid to use a Atom CPU and as noted before, theres no real source for this information beside the article on the magazines site (That doesn't seem to have a source, so I think they just mixed something up here).
The SoCs inside the phones aren't just a ARM-Processor. There's usually a DSP too and maybe some hardware accelerators for video and other things. Since the Atom lacks those (And still eats much more energy) it would suck as a processor for a mobile phone - a rather bad idea then, especially for a flagship device. I don't think that a crappy 1,5 GHz Atom would decode 1080p in realtime at all - A Cortex A9 does this without really using the 2 ARM cores :P
I rather guess that Nokia may bring out some MeeGo Tablet, that may have an Atom processor. But yeah thats just my guess, hope it won't appear on a hundred blogs now
|
2011-01-21
, 16:32
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 1,916 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Edmonton, AB
|
#117
|
|
2011-01-21
, 16:45
|
|
Posts: 1,839 |
Thanked: 2,432 times |
Joined on May 2009
|
#118
|
wow, it's too bad you guys can't read the specs we found and put in the first 10 pages... so sad. i guess i have to make a new thread for those too lazy to read anything properly.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tissot For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2011-01-21
, 17:00
|
Posts: 12 |
Thanked: 6 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#119
|
|
2011-01-21
, 17:15
|
Posts: 671 |
Thanked: 1,630 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
|
#120
|
Sounds kind of fishy to me...
Something along the lines of "Let's make the ad so people think it's better than it is, not how truly good the thing is..."
May lead to false expectations, not good for long term prospects.
The total returns to cutting marketing and R&D spending at the time of
improved profitability are significantly negative across all three benchmarks. In four years
potentially myopic firms, on average, under-perform their size and book-to-market matched
benchmarks by -13.3% (median= -13.8%) when the benchmarks are selected without additional
restrictions on their earnings condition in the initial period. On average, myopic firms under-
perform their performance-equivalent bench-marks (i.e., firms with positive earnings surprise in
the initial period) by -17.7% (median=-17.2%) and their matching benchmarks with a negative
earnings surprise by -14.4% (median=-13.7%). 9