i have a n95 8gb and no ALOT of people who have the iphone and always give me shit about how the iphone is better. The one thing that doesnt make sense to me is why is the accelerometer on the iphone so much better than the accelerometer on the n95? its way more sensitive and that makes the games using the accelerometer for the iphone way better than the games that use the accelerometer for the n95. I just dont understand why its so much better, is it a hardware issue or is the software for it just better?
n95 accelerometer vs iphone accelerometer
I don't think accelerometer is much different on these device, and whatever difference there are, are probably insignificant (and for all I know, both manufacturers could even be using the exact same accelerometer component in their devices, as I suspect neither one have developed their own, but buy it from somebody else).
The iPhone just uses it somewhat better in the phone user interface, and there are probably more applications that use it, too, for the iPhone.
Of course, the iPhone also has a larger resolution display, and the main process runs almost twice at the clock rate of the N95. Those have an impact on what you can do, too.
is there anyway to change the clock rate at which it runs so its as smooth as the iphones?
if you've ever installed the moving ball app to the n95, you will see that the accelerometer is super sensitive. its just that nokia made the auto screen rotate software very basic, where the iphone's is much more fancy.
I think both accelerometers are the same, its just developers really have to use it on the iPhone/Touch because theres no buttons to use. Theres really very view decent accelerometer apps for symbian phones at the moment. They all seem to be a bit basic. Hopefully more apps will come soon!
As for the clock rate. what N/A ment was the clock speed of the processor in the phones, I think the iPhone is 500 mhz + and the N95 is 290 mhz+? Its the reason why the iPhone is so much smoother to use. This is where the n95 lags over its competitors I think.
adz07 wrote:
As for the clock rate. what N/A ment was the clock speed of the processor in the phones, I think the iPhone is 500 mhz + and the N95 is 290 mhz+?
If I'm not mistaken the N95 has an ARM processor running at 206 MHz. At least that is what it says when you're running NSysInfo
Bit more poke than that!
"The Nokia 95 runs on an Texas Instruments ARM 11 dual core processor clocked at 332 MHz." (Quote from mobiletechreview)
Not to mention the dedicated 3D graphics accellerator hardware (not that it gets any use in most software!)
S.
That seems to be the big problem with the N95, it has an accelerometer and 3d graphics accellerator, but no one is really doing much with it. Thats the iPhones biggest advantage, developers really have to use it.
Seeing as most top end windows phones have a 500 mhz plus processort (I think the omnia is something like 624 mhz?), I think its why they're so much more enjoyable to use than the N95. Like it takes a while just to bring up the messaging program.
fabbors wrote:If I'm not mistaken the N95 has an ARM processor running at 206 MHz. At least that is what it says when you're running NSysInfoNSysInfo and other such application use the Symbian HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) API for obtaining the CPU speed. Unfortunately this isn't reporting the actual process speed, but is just a static/fixed value (which Nokia has not bothered to change/update for every device). Whomever does the hardware adaptation, so called baseporting, of Symbian to new hardware is the one who usually would set this value to reflect the hardware, if they bother to. After that, the same baseport can be used on faster hardware, and then also whomever does it, usually does not bother going back to fix this variable to reflect the faster processor.
In other words, what the API reports is usually false (not the actual CPU speed).
The N95 CPU speed is 332MHz (using a TI OMAP2, 2420, ARM11 processor).
Internet articles seem to indicate that Apple runs a Samsung based ARM11 processor at ~620MHz).
N/A wrote:In other words, what the API reports is usually false (not the actual CPU speed).The N95 CPU speed is 332MHz (using a TI OMAP2, 2420, ARM11 processor).
thank you for clearing out this matter. I always thought that 206 MHz was way to slow for a high-end phone, such as the N95.
Texas Instruments ARM 11 dual core processor clocked at 332 MHz
I read somewhere that one core is mainly used for DSP and the other for running apps so the N95 should be much better at multitasking than the iphone.
A situation where 2 x 332MHz could be more efficient than 1 x 620MHz maybe?
s.
The iPhone ARM 1176 CPU is dual core (from the ARM page) and underclocked (originally at 400MHz and now 412MHz since a firmware update, according to Wikipedia). So it's probably ~25% faster. The smoothness of the interface comes from better use of the graphics hardware though.
adz07 wrote:That seems to be the big problem with the N95, it has an accelerometer and 3d graphics accellerator, but no one is really doing much with it. Thats the iPhones biggest advantage, developers really have to use it.
3D gfx acceleration is pretty rarely used on all mobile platforms. For example, on WM, only a handful of games and some emulators use it - and nothing else.
argh wrote:The iPhone ARM 1176 CPU is dual core (from the ARM page) and underclocked (originally at 400MHz and now 412MHz since a firmware update, according to Wikipedia). So it's probably ~25% faster. The smoothness of the interface comes from better use of the graphics hardware though.
Pretty hard to compare the two CPU's as one of them is from Samsung, the other from TI. TI's ARM CPU's have traditionally been far more efficient than Intel (Marvel's) Xscale's and the Qualcomm MS7x00 series clocked at the same frequency - and somewhat (but not much) more efficient than those of Samsung, as far as the old ARM9 Samsung archiutecture (the 42xx series) is concerned.
I still haven't had the chance / time to play with the new ARM11-based Samsung 5xxx/6xxx (to run cross-platform benchmarks etc.); hope they're substantially better than the 42xx series.