Jump to content

HTC EVO 4G LTE


P_M_G

Recommended Posts

Engadget have benchmarked the phone against the Note, the One X(AT&T and Global version), the and One S. The dual core S4 outperforms the quad Exynos in the majority of benchmarks, sometimes by double.

 

http://www.engadget....iii-benchmarks/

 

I've seen articles that the US version of the Galaxy SIII will come with a Snapdragon S4, so the CPU comparison will be a wash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though it beat the One X (AT&T) in some tests and even the One S (Int), for a phone having 2 more cores, it really didn't totally blow anything away in the benchmarks. There were a few that were significantly higher but most were a few ticks either behind or ahead of the dual cores. Have you seen if the if the Exynos quad supports LTE and such on chip like the S4?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen articles that the US version of the Galaxy SIII will come with a Snapdragon S4, so the CPU comparison will be a wash.

 

Hmm interesting. The S4 does come in quad version according to Qualcomm's website. It would definitely interesting to benchmark the quad vs dual versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though it beat the One X (AT&T) in some tests and even the One S (Int), for a phone having 2 more cores, it really didn't totally blow anything away in the benchmarks. There were a few that were significantly higher but most were a few ticks either behind or ahead of the dual cores. Have you seen if the if the Exynos quad supports LTE and such on chip like the S4?

 

Well if the cores were Cortex-A15 then you'd of seen a pure stomping of the S4....but given the SGS3 having A9's the S4 can make up for some room with the core disadvantage it has

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well if the cores were Cortex-A15 then you'd of seen a pure stomping of the S4....but given the SGS3 having A9's the S4 can make up for some room with the core disadvantage it has

 

I can't wait for a chip with A15 cores to come out.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm interesting. The S4 does come in quad version according to Qualcomm's website. It would definitely interesting to benchmark the quad vs dual versions.

 

I think Qualcomm is having such a difficult time getting usable dual-core chips out of TSMC, it will be a while before TSMC has enough capacity to bake quad-core chips in large numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait for a chip with A15 cores to come out.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Yeah I love Qualcomm's stuff but they really throw a wrench into things since they dont use the standard ARM like everyone else seems to do...using their own stuff and in turn making it Cortex-A15(LIKE) instead of a full blown A15 leaves a ton of variables out there...but if everyone had the same stuff this wouldn't be as fun then i guess. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Qualcomm is having such a difficult time getting usable dual-core chips out of TSMC, it will be a while before TSMC has enough capacity to bake quad-core chips in large numbers.

 

their last roadmap didn't have an MSM variant of the S4 in quadcore till Q1 '13...though there were those rumors of one being out by the end of this fall...it goes against the roadmap less its using the modemless APQ8064 quad chip...

given that alone I wouldn't put much stock in the production issues now being the reason for a lack of one...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think Qualcomm is having such a difficult time getting usable dual-core chips out of TSMC, it will be a while before TSMC has enough capacity to bake quad-core chips in large numbers.

 

Are you going by the blogosphere accounts of financial chat with Qualcomm?

 

If so, per usual, the blogosphere hacked that transcript and added to it whole cloth.

 

The supply is going to lower for a bit this year but I don't believe that it's a yield problem. I believe that the public record only shows that supply is within band of original projections but that the demand projections were much lower than actual demand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well if the cores were Cortex-A15 then you'd of seen a pure stomping of the S4....but given the SGS3 having A9's the S4 can make up for some room with the core disadvantage it has

 

Respectfully, the urban myth of the A15 killing the Krait - that's not terribly accurate at all.

 

In fact, it's rather inaccurate.

Edited by EarlyMon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully, the urban myth of the A15 killing the Krait - that's not terribly accurate at all.

 

In fact, it's rather inaccurate.

 

???

 

So then the Krait would have to preform better than a regular A15 for that to happen no? 4 A15's at 32nm vs the 2 28nm kraits.....you think the 4 A15's wouldn't stomp the 2 kraits?

 

If your talking simply 1 A15 versus 1 Krait then I fully agree with you and think you just miss took what I was referring to in my post b/c thats not what I was talking about the SGS3 cores there being A15....

 

Edit:

 

After going back through and reading the posts in order im pretty sure I easily could of come off wrong there in my previous post. lol

By NO MEANS did I mean to infer the A15 is a Krait killer. lol

Was saying if the SGS3 had A15 cores it would of stomped the S4 completely...worded poorly by me originally there as I left the whole SGS3 part out and was just commenting on the last sentence of the post i quoted really. lol

 

oops :)

 

Anyone that thinks the A15 stomps the Krait is deeply mistaken, imho :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. :)

 

The Sammy approach leaves the ARM Cortex page behind and varies like the S4 - asynchronous cpu clocks and independent voltages. Very out of the box for an ARM.

 

I do wonder at their choice of the A9 right now. Maybe they think it's enough? Maybe they want those new technologies (for them) down first before tackling the A15?

 

Interesting times indeed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.

 

The Sammy approach leaves the ARM Cortex page behind and varies like the S4 - asynchronous cpu clocks and independent voltages. Very out of the box for an ARM.

 

I do wonder at their choice of the A9 right now. Maybe they think it's enough? Maybe they want those new technologies (for them) down first before tackling the A15?

 

Interesting times indeed.

 

Yup very interesting indeed!

 

Then toss in Intel in the near future and the chip battle heats up much more given their claims at CES...

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yup very interesting indeed!

 

Then toss in Intel in the near future and the chip battle heats up much more given their claims at CES...

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

 

I am also looking forward to seeing what Intel brings to the table

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire running CM9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they put the same size battery in the Evo LTE as what's in the RAZR MAXX, then heck to the LTE iPhone. I love all day battery life. :D

 

Edit: Who knows, maybe someone will make an external battery case like the Mophie for this phone.

 

I ran across this when I was browsing. http://www.power-skin.com/battery-cases/ap1507evo/htc-evo-powerskin.html

 

There is one "coming soon" for the HTC One S, so it looks like there is a good chance that there will be something for the EVO LTE. I didn't even know about PowerSkin until today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran across this when I was browsing. http://www.power-ski...-powerskin.html

 

There is one "coming soon" for the HTC One S, so it looks like there is a good chance that there will be something for the EVO LTE. I didn't even know about PowerSkin until today.

 

Guess it's possible for the LTE Evo to get an external battery after all. Thanks Scott for posting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just pre-ordered through Wirefly and the ship date of the Evo 4g LTE is May 18th.

 

:D

 

First confirmation. I'm still waiting on the official site to come online in the next 30 minutes.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ordered my wife her EVO LTE from the official Sprint page. It says it will ship on or before national launch. But it doesn't disclose the national launch date. :(

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My telesale rep wouldn't confirm shipment date but said as early as May 10th. She wouldn't confirm it but said that it's a listed date in the computer as possible....

 

Ordered via telesales.

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, I posted at android central forums @ 8:14 about the May 18th release date... darn, I guess I was second.

 

on that forum though, someone pointed out that the promotion period for the presale on sprint.com ends on 5/17... would that further indicate a 5/18 launch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading people getting conflicting reports from sprint, may 10th,14th 17th & 18th.

 

I guess it'll be a waiting game for the shipping confirmations....

 

Gl and congrats everyone.

 

From Another poster :

 

I pre-ordered the 4G LTE on sprint.com, and then checked my order status... I got a message that some additional validation (or something like that) was required on the order, and to call an 800 number to expedite things.

 

...so I called, and answered a few questions (mainly identity verification stuff like address, number of lines on my account, etc.), and the representative said it my phone was in the warehouse now, and that it should be arriving in "two to five days".

 

Of course, he could've been horribly mistaken, but now I'm damned excited. Anyone else have any info/stories like this one?

 

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to get a little concerned. I hope they aren't shipping the device with the LTE Connectivity bug and just hoping to resolve it with an OTA after the fact. That would be a major bummer. Or would it?

 

Most of you would probably rather have the device with the bug, since very few of us have usable LTE at the moment. And unless you had another LTE device next to the EVOLTE, you would probably assume it was just a blocked LTE site if you couldn't connect. Interesting to ponder.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...