Pixel Visual Core: Google’s first custom-designed co-processor

101–102 of 102 posts

Re: Pixel Visual Core: Google’s first custom-designed co-processor

#101

Post by jrs95 » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

bitmapbrother wrote: post #93

jrs95 wrote: post #67

Maybe Google should start designing it's own CPUs/SoCs as well, since Qualcomm doesn't really seem capable of keeping up with what Apple is doing. Snapdragon 835 came out 6 months after the A10, and scored about 2/3 as well at single core, and less than 10% on Geekbench 4. A11 scored twice what the 835 did on single core, and over 50% more on multi core, and the 835 is going to be the best chip available in the U.S.…

Why not also blame Samsung for their Exynos or Huawei for their Kirin? Do you know what all 3 of these 3 SoC's have in common? They all use the same reference design developed by ARM. None of these SoC makers are going to spend the additional billions in SoC R&D deviating from the ARM design. If you really want to see a change then it must begin with ARM. >Qualcomm doesn't really seem capable of keeping up with what…

You could blame them as well, it's just a lot less relevant to the U.S. smartphone market (where iPhone has the highest market share AFAIK) since everyone is on Snapdragon here.

As for Qualcomm and Apple being on different release cycles...that's exactly the problem! They're 6 months behind AND still have worse performance, plus due to their deal with Samsung, it's going to take even longer than that for any other manufacturers to ship devices with 845.

As another comment said, it's not really going to be profitable for any company to try and compete with Apple on this. Which is why if it is going to happen, it's going to have to be done by someone like Google who has a vested interest in it beyond profitability from the chips themselves. If ARM reference designs can't keep up with what Apple is doing, and nobody else is willing to invest to go beyond them, Android will fall behind in the high end of the market.

Re: Pixel Visual Core: Google’s first custom-designed co-processor

#102

Post by ksk » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #98

ksk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the pictures that non-photographers can take with their phones in a matter of seconds are down right amazing. But that simply highlights that simply owning good gear doesn't mean you can shoot good pictures. You still need to learn lighting, composition, posing your subjects, etc etc, which was always the case!

Absolutely. Every photographer should be focused on those things as job one. My point above was that many wannabe photographers just focus on gear, and they are very quick to be critical of what phones are producing. My point was that phones can and are making great pictures without requiring a bag full of gear, and that it's highlighting that gear is secondary to the skills you listed.

I guess we have different personalities in mind when it comes to gear-heads. I think of them as people chasing tiny (sometimes imperceptible) improvements which only require you to buy something as opposed to learning something. (much like the casual bikers who chase tiny weight reductions or obsess over which bike is more "aero").

>My point was that phones can and are making great pictures without requiring a bag full of gear, and that it's highlighting that gear is secondary to the skills you listed.

I'd phrase it differently though, and I'm sure you'd agree. I'd say that gear isn't secondary, but gear is a tool that should be used when appropriate. You still need carry an external flash/light/etc if you want to light your subject in poor light. You still need to carry a long lens if you want to take a picture of an eagle perched in a tree. You still need a tripod if you want long exposures, etc, etc.

Post reply on HN