karlos devel | # 2571 | 2018-06-17, 20:43 | Report

SONY XPERIA-XA2 is more elegant than X, also more similary to beloved NOKIA-N9

karlos devel | # 2572 | 2018-06-17, 20:51 | Report

Hello sailors
someone here could connect the sd with ext4 for the sony X.

---

Last edited by karlos devel; 2018-06-17 at 23:03.

deprecated | # 2573 | 2018-06-17, 21:05 | Report

The 630 is big.LITTLE, two discrete sets of cores, they're just all A53's. Remember, the 650 spec sheet doesn't indicate it's big.LITTLE, either, it just denotes two obviously separate groups - 2x A72 + 4x A53.

"The Snapdragon 630 SoC uses a familiar octa-core Cortex-A53 CPU configuration. Unlike the Snapdragon 625/626 that it replaces, the Snapdragon 630 has a more distinct big.LITTLE arrangement with four A53s running at up to 2.2GHz (the same as the S626) sharing a 1MB L2 cache and four more A53s only reaching up to 1.8GHz and sharing a smaller 512KB L2 cache. While there should not be much difference in CPU performance and power compared to the Snapdragon 626, the Snapdragon 630’s Adreno 508 GPU performs 30% better on average than the S626’s Adreno 506 GPU. It also supports Vulkan and all of the latest 3D graphics APIs at resolutions up to 1920x1200. The Hexagon 642 DSP still supports Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Neural Processing Engine SDK for machine learning and TensorFlow, but does not share the Hexagon Vector eXtensions (HVX) microarchitecture of the more powerful Hexagon 680 and 682 DSPs."


That said though, the A72 cores on my Xperia X rarely ever cycle up under most load conditions and use cases. That indicates that, more often than not, the A53's are doing the bulk of the heavy lifting.

The A53's on the Xperia X are the same clock as the JP1. The Xperia X just has double the cores, much wider bus, much faster RAM.

The 630 is the same comparison. Yeah, you won't notice it just browsing, but you will notice the reduced power consumption, newer technologies (like Vulkan support in the 630), bigger battery and reduced heat. That's the point. I'm not saying it'll be like going from an AMD Duron to a Threadripper. I'm saying the power consumption reduction granted by the newer fab, the newer technology potential (faster eMMC, etc.) makes it attractive.

snapdragon 400 = 533MHz RAM
snapdragon 650 = 933MHz RAM, big.LITTLE
snapdragon 630 = 1333MHz RAM, big.LITTLE, hugely better GPU and better LTE modem, 14nm fab

I mean, I get it, on paper it looks like the same tech. It isn't. There are many more factors than just A53 cores.

Edit: some synthetics:

geekbench 4.1/4.2, 64-bit multicore:

snapdragon 650: 2869
snapdragon 630: 4170


kraken 1.1:

snapdragon 650: 3555
snapdragon 630: 9584

---

Last edited by deprecated; 2018-06-17 at 21:17.

deprecated | # 2574 | 2018-06-17, 21:23 | Report

Yeah I thought so too! I feel like the XA2 was chosen specifically for that appearance... kind of a nod to times of old.

lantern | # 2575 | 2018-06-17, 21:31 | Report

These are not the tests. Give me a linux kernel compilation time on both, then we'll talk (I'm not asking for SPEC ).
Also XA2 is 1mm wider than X (and X is already too big) - speaking of N9 resemblance...

PS Sony and Jolla: xz2 compact, please?

Fuzzillogic | # 2576 | 2018-06-17, 21:46 | Report

Thanks, I stand corrected.

I do find those benchmarks indicative for the actual problem: the A53-cores. The Kraken benchmark runs about 3 times slower on the 630 than on the 650, indicating that web browsing is severely hampered by these cores. And given that browsers still aren't all that multithreaded, more cores won't help.

I ran Kraken on my JP1. Obviously I don't have Chrome, so direct comparison to the numbers you provided is not really possible. (Although, on my desktop, Chromium and Firefox are 1053ms and 908ms, so not that far apart)

Firefox 60.0.2 (Via AlienDalvik): 14553ms
SFOS Browser 2.2.0.29: 12464ms (a bit faster, I didn't expect that)

Could someone with a Xpera X or XA2 run these benchmarks on Firefox as well? Then that might be a better comparison.

[edit] Yeah I get it, the XA2/630 while not much faster, is much more efficient. And overall the XA2 will be a big step up coming from the JP1. Even physically, I've had one in my hands, it is a nice device. But speed, apart from games and some edge cases, isn't part of the upgrade.

---

Last edited by Fuzzillogic; 2018-06-17 at 21:57.

Mara | # 2577 | 2018-06-17, 22:15 | Report

Some Kraken 1.1 benchmarks of my two Jollas and Nokia 6 and Alcatel Pixi 4 Android phones:

XperiaX (2.2.0.29):
- SFOS Browser: 6127ms
- Firefox 61.0 beta (Aliendalvik): 6345ms

Moto G4 plus (snapdragon 617, 4xCortex-A53@1.5GHz, 4xCortex-A53@1.2GHz, 2.2.0.29):
- SFOS Browser:11155ms
- Webpirate: 23212
- Webcat: 23267

Nokia 6 (Snapdragon 430, 8xCortex-A53@1.4GHz, Android 8.1.0):
- Brave: 13492
- Chrome: 13480

Alcatel Pixi 4 (6") (Snapdragon 210, 4xCortex-A7@1.1GHz, Android 6.0.1):
- Chrome: 21619ms

---

Last edited by Mara; 2018-06-17 at 23:22. Reason: More datapoints

Fuzzillogic | # 2578 | 2018-06-17, 23:00 | Report

Okay, I must say, that's faster than what I'd expected. Extrapolating to 2.2GHz of a XA2 that would mean 7605ms, 1.7 times as fast as on JP1, and not even that much slower than the X.

Mara | # 2579 | 2018-06-17, 23:17 | Report

I reran the benchmark and got almost the same result... It should be accurate.

For kicks and giggles I also tested our slowest device: Alcatel Pixi 4 (6"). It has Snapdragon 210 (4xCortex-A7@1.1GHz):
- Chrome: 21619ms

---

Last edited by Mara; 2018-06-17 at 23:30. Reason: typo

MartinK | # 2580 | 2018-06-17, 23:32 | Report

Just for the record (again ): if you don't see the bigger cores used often in Aida on Xperia X with Sailfish OS - you are actually just seeing the still sub-optimal core scheduling. From Sailfish OS 2.2 release notes:

I guess this would be FIXED in XA2 if all the cores are very similar.