rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,comp.arch.embedded,alt.comp.h= ardware.pc- homebuilt
Can anybody help me figure out how fast (what Elo rating) modern cell phone and mobile phone hardware play chess? Go to the SSDF rating list
38 Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz 2682 65 -59 138 67% 2557
39 Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2671 31 -31 493 52% 2659
40 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz 2642 59 -57 149 59% 2580
Which shows that an XScale 400Mhz machine plays like a Pentium IV class machine from around 2003. I think XScale is used in some older (few years ago) Nokia cell phones.
But what about more modern cell phone hardware, like the ones that use Qualcomm's SnapDraggon chip?
From what I can tell, the following rule of thumb is correct.
Snapdragon (single core) and Marvell's Armada 500/600, both based on ARMv7 implementations, are roughly equal to Intel's Atom. Intel's Atom is roughly equal to a 2003-2004 vintage Celeron. So using SSDF you can do the math and see what a mobile phone playing software chess program like Pocket Fritz can do in a cell phone employing these chips. Roughly the programs would have an Elo on the SSDF list of a little above 2660 Elo on the SSDF list, probably close to 2700 to 2750 (dual core Snapdragon cell phones, which come out in late 2011 to
2012, would be at the upper limit).
But does anybody have more precise figures? Perhaps based on the number of chess nodes searched per second for various chips embedded in mobile PDAs and cell phones?
RL
From the net...
Anybody
Embedded processors based on the ARM version 7 instruction set architecture (such as TI's OMAP 3 series and Freescale's i.MX51 based on the Cortex-A8 processor, or the Qualcomm Snapdragon and Marvell Armada 500/600 based on custom ARMv7 implementations) offer similar performance to the low end Atom chipsets[dubious =96 discuss] but at roughly one quarter the power consumption, and (like most ARM systems) as a single integrated system on a chip, rather than a two chip solution like the current Atom line. Although the next-generation Atom codenamed "Pineview" should greatly increase its competitiveness in performance/watt, ARM plans to counter the threat with the multi-core capable Cortex-A9 processor as used in Nvidia's Tegra 2, T.I.'s OMAP 4 series, and Qualcomm's next-generation Snapdragon series, among others.
--
Mobile Chipsets: WTF Are Atom, Tegra and Snapdragon?
Dan Nosowitz =97 Low-power processors aren't just for netbooks: These computers-on-a-chip are going to be powering our smartphones and other diminutive gadgets in the forseeable future. So what's the difference between the Atoms, Snapdragons and Tegras of the world?
Intel Atom The current reigning king of low-cost, low-power processors, Intel's Atom flat-out dominates the netbook market. Its single- and dual-core processors are also some of the most powerful on our list, despite having abilities roughly equal to, in Intel's own terms, a 2003-2004 vintage Celeron. Based on the x86 architecture, the Atom is capable of running full versions of Windows XP, Vista (though not all that well), and 7, as well as modern Linux distros and even Hackintosh. While it requires far less power than a full-power chip, it's still more power- hungry than the ARM-based processors on our list, requiring about 2 watts on average. That's why netbook battery life isn't all that much longer than that of a normal laptop.
You can find the Atom in just about every netbook, including those from HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Sony, Toshiba, MSI, and, well, everyone else. The 1.6GHz chip is the most popular at the moment, but Intel is definitely going to keep improving and upgrading the Atom line. However, you're unlikely to catch an Atom in a handset; it's low- power, yes, but low-power for a notebook. Battery life on an Atom handset would be pretty atrocious, which is why Intel's sticking to netbooks for now.
Qualcomm Snapdragon Based on ARM, which is a 32-bit processor architecture that powers just about every mobile phone (and various other peripherals, though never desktop computers) out there, Snapdragon isn't competing directly with the Intel Atom=97it's not capable of running full versions of Windows (only Windows Mobile and Windows CE), it's incredibly energy-efficient (requiring less than half a watt), and is designed for always-on use. In other words, this is the evolution of the mobile computing processor. It's got great potential: Qualcomm is trumpeting battery life stretching past 10 hours, smooth 1080p video, support for GPS, 3G, and Bluetooth, and such efficiency that a Linux-based netbook can use Snapdragon without a fan or even a heat sink. Available in single core (1GHz) or dual-core (1.5GHz), it can be used in conjunction with Android, Linux, and various mobile OSes.
Unfortunately, Qualcomm is still holding onto the notion that people want MIDs, and is championing "smartbooks," which are essentially smartphones with netbook bodies, like Asus's announced-then-retracted Eee with Android. Snapdragon's got promise, but we think that promise lies in super-powered handheld devices, not even more underpowered versions of already-underpowered netbooks.
We're frankly not sure when we'll see Snapdragon-based devices sold in the US. We're sure Snapdragon will end up in smartphones at some point, as at least one Toshiba handset has been tentatively announced, but the only concrete demonstrations we've seen have been in MIDs, and Snapdragon themselves spend all their energy touting these "smartbooks." Snapdragon's Windows Mobile compatibility suggests we may see it roll out with Windows Mobile 7, if Tegra hasn't snapped up all the good handsets.
Nvidia Tegra Nvidia's Tegra processor is very similar to Snapdragon=97both are based on ARM architecture, so both are designed for even less intense applications than the Atom. Like Snapdragon, Tegra isn't capable of running desktop versions of Windows, so it's primarily targeted at Android and handheld OSes, especially forthcoming versions of Windows Mobile. What sets Tegra apart from Snapdragon is the Nvidia graphics pedigree: The company claims smooth 1080p video, like Snapdragon, but also hardware-accelerated Flash video and even respectable gaming (though no, you won't be able to run Crysis). They also go even further than Qualcomm in their battery life claim, suggesting an absolutely insane 30 hours of HD video.
While Snapdragon tends to be loosely associated with Android, Tegra is an integral part of Microsoft's plan for next-generation Windows Mobile devices. Instead of focusing on "smartbooks" and MIDs, which we think are part of a dead-end category, Tegra's commitment to pocketable handhelds could spell success. We've seen proof-of-concept demonstrations of Tegra already, but its real commercial debut will come with Windows Mobile 7=97and if WM7 doesn't suck, Tegra could take off.
Others We haven't included certain other processors, especially VIA's Nano, due to intent: The Nano requires lower power than full-scale processors, but at 25 watts, it's not even really in the same league as Atom, let alone Snapdragon or Tegra. The VIA Nano is really targeted at non-portable green technology, and looks like it'll do a good job=97it outperformed Atom in Ars Technica's excellent test, and stands up to moderate use with ease. AMD's Puma (Turion X2) is in a similar boat: It's certainly markedly more energy-efficient than AMD's other offerings, but as it's targeted at laptops (not netbooks) with a screen size greater than 12-inches, it's not quite right for our list here.
These low-power processors aren't just, as we so often think, crappier versions of "real" processors. They've got uses far beyond netbooks, especially in the near future as the gap between netbooks and smartphones narrows.
Still something you still wanna know? Send any questions about why your iPhone can't play Crysis, how to tie a bow tie, or anything else to tips at gizmodo.com, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line.