Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Samsung Galaxy S5 Could Pack 64-bit Chip, 16-MP Camera

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 35 comments

Rumors about the specs for Samsung's Galaxy S5 are heating up following the company's Analyst Day.

Last we heard, Samsung was busy preparing the Galaxy S5 for an early 2014 launch. As in, January. Though it seems soon, rumored specs were a 16-megapixel camera and Samsung's own Exynos chip. Today brings yet more talk of the next flagship Galaxy S phone.

According to SamMobile, earlier this week, during its Analyst Day, Samsung confirmed that all of its flagship devices released next year would have a 16-megapixel camera. This fits in quite nicely with what we heard about the S5 before. The 16-megapixel sensors will also apparently use Samsung's ISOCELL technology which allows for better photography in low light settings as well as improved color, sharpness, and richness.

This comes after reports that a 64-bit Exynos is "all but confirmed." During Analyst Day, Samsung revealed a two-prong approach in creating a 64-bit chip. This involved developing a 64-bit chip based on ARM's design, and then its own "optimized" 64-bit CPU core design afterwards. This approach was revealed by Stephen Woo, president of System LSI at Samsung Electronics, although a specific time frame for the custom core was not provided.

Samsung's GS4 was announced last March and went on sale in April. The first model went on sale in June the year it was announced, while the Galaxy S II and Galaxy S III both had May launches. Looking at that track record, Samsung doesn't really have a clear pattern for launching new Galaxy S phones. With sales of the GS4 slowing, it seems the company is hoping that a whole new model will bring in more sales.

Follow Jane McEntegart @JaneMcEntegart. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Discuss
Display all 35 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 13 Hide
    jacobdrj , November 10, 2013 5:53 AM
    The bigger issue with camera implementation in a smart phone is less the camera quality and more fast access to the camera. Cameras buttons should be mandatory and should bypass screen lock and needs to load instantly...
Other Comments
  • 9 Hide
    house70 , November 10, 2013 5:27 AM
    Quote:
    Instead of making the camera itself better, they're making it bigger.

    Oh, Samsung. Probably the Lumia 920, 925 and 928 will still take you on any day.


    ISOCELL. Look it up. They ARE making it better.
  • 13 Hide
    jacobdrj , November 10, 2013 5:53 AM
    The bigger issue with camera implementation in a smart phone is less the camera quality and more fast access to the camera. Cameras buttons should be mandatory and should bypass screen lock and needs to load instantly...
  • 0 Hide
    segio526 , November 10, 2013 6:44 AM
    I don't get why 64-bit is a talking point. It's not like people are going to buy this phone and then upgrade the RAM. When it becomes necessary to push RAM beyond 4GB, it will be assumed that the architecture will be there to support it. The only reason it was a talking point in the PC market was because companies were stumbling over themselves trying to figure out how 64-bit should be done after the point when it was needed (Thankfully x86-64 beat out Itanium). Every other processor manufacture should already know that it's not a matter of IF, it's WHEN their customers will need more than 4GB and they will have it all figured out well in advance.
  • 9 Hide
    jacobdrj , November 10, 2013 7:09 AM
    Quote:
    Samsung makes the highest quality phones on the market today, but really who cares about a 64 bit processor? Forget about the fact that this phone won't have 4 GB of memory, a phone multitasking enough to require over 4 GB of memory would drain its battery in minutes.

    What I would like to see in the S5 is 64 GB, 128 GB, and 256 GB storage options. Why are we seeing the same storage options from five years ago, especially considering the OS takes up so much more space today.?

    Quote:
    The bigger issue with camera implementation in a smart phone is less the camera quality and more fast access to the camera. Cameras buttons should be mandatory and should bypass screen lock and needs to load instantly...


    You're an idiot. Maybe 1% of smart phone buyers would want such a feature and you want to make it mandatory? Mandatory? Where are you from, North Korea?

    Go buy an actual camera retard.


    It is unfortunate that you are choosing to be so abusive, as you do bring some interesting talking points...
    Quote:
    Samsung makes the highest quality phones on the market today

    I find that a bit subjective, particularly from owners of HTC and Nokia and Apple products who seem to think their phones are pretty much of the same, if not better quality. If you are referring to features, Samsung does seem to try to put the most into their flagship phones, often at the expense of something like screen technology choice, but that is mostly personal preference. Product differentiation is good. My big problem with Samsung phones is that anything other than their top-tier flagship phones are of low quality in terms of both build and optimization. They tend to be slow, unnecessarily handicapped, and a bit of a burden to use. Not everyone wants an unlocked $500+ phone, or a 2 year contract.

    Quote:
    Forget about the fact that this phone won't have 4 GB of memory, a phone multitasking enough to require over 4 GB of memory would drain its battery in minutes.


    It might. Android has proven to be the least memory efficient OS of the current big 3, and 4 gigs of RAM plus might be a good remedy to that. There are other advantages to 64bit addressing beyond just memory in terms of how virtual memory is handled and the apps might be coded. As the old saying goes: You will never need more than 640k of memory...

    Quote:
    What I would like to see in the S5 is 64 GB, 128 GB, and 256 GB storage options.

    I don't disagree. This has been a huge disappointment for me ever since the 1st flash-based iPods came out. I was always waiting for that 128 gigger to replace my 40 gigger... Never really happened, and certainly not affordability. To say nothing of phones that have no SD expansion and have more than just music on it... Apps, photos, videos, etc... They need options with more memory, even if the price is insane...

    Quote:
    Maybe 1% of smart phone buyers would want such a feature and you want to make it mandatory?

    First off, 99% of statistics are made up on the spot...
    With that said:
    With your mentality, why have anything other than a phone on your cell phone in the 1st place?
    Want a GPS? GET A DEDICATED GPS!
    Want a web browser? GET A DEDICATED TABLET WITH DATA!
    Want to be able to text? GET A 2-WAY PAGER!!!
    Want to listen to music/watch video? GET A PMP!
    Seriously, the whole idea of the smartphone is a way to carry less devices to do more things as those things need to happen... I love that phone companies are trying to differentiate by providing better features. they can't seem do differentiate on much else, as your hand is only so big, batter chemistry is only so advanced, and as of right now, everybody is using the same SoC for their processors(s).
    There is another saying: The best camera is the one you have on you. I have a dedicated camera. It is awesome because it takes good pictures, has good focus, is reasonably small, and it is both water and shock resistant... Things most phones are not. But I'd rather have a phone that does all of these things, particularly since my phone is always on and on me anyways, whereas my camera is only on me some times, and usually off.
    Why mandatory? First off, nobody is talking about a government mandate. That is just silly. I am talking about a required spec from either Google, Microsoft or Apple, requiring a dedicated camera button on their phones. This isn't some crazy idea... They already require certain types of CPUs, screens, minimum and maximum RAM requirements to install their OSs... A dedicated camera button on a phone that works as soon as you press it, and goes into a sandbox environment as not to hurt your phone's security (I'll leave that to the OS developers to handle the edge cases). But I always have my phone on me. It is always on anyways. My current phone has great battery life and quick charge (Lumia 521). My data is always automatically backed up to the cloud, in case my phone is lost/stolen/destroyed (unlike my last waterproof camera that is now at the bottom of a river) and is a good enough camera that it is what I capture pictures of my family's most precious moments more often than not...
  • -5 Hide
    soldier44 , November 10, 2013 7:52 AM
    Quote:
    Instead of making the camera itself better, they're making it bigger.

    Oh, Samsung. Probably the Lumia 920, 925 and 928 will still take you on any day.


    Your bragging about windows crap phones really? LOL. Get real!
  • -1 Hide
    jacobdrj , November 10, 2013 8:03 AM
    Soldier44... Those Windows crap phones are pretty darn good. Even their bargain basement models are darned good. Anecdotally, most of my family are running Lumias, having upgraded from midtier Androids and seem quite happy...
  • 0 Hide
    bombebomb , November 10, 2013 8:20 AM
    Eh, 64bit, I am not going to get excited (although I do have android bias) until I see it being used to its full potential.
  • 4 Hide
    clonazepam , November 10, 2013 8:39 AM
    Ignore Soldier44, he's just miffed he couldn't find an excuse to include his pc specs in a comment lol
  • 6 Hide
    johnjohn67 , November 10, 2013 8:43 AM
    Android is inefficient in the memory department due to being filled with manufactures bloatware. Flashing any custom rom for my s4 either it's touchwiz or AOSP my ram from the OS is never higher than 600mb and for plain roms like CM its under 500mb. Stock TW used to use 1.1gb. Manufactures need to be better at making their stock OS efficient.
  • 0 Hide
    johnjohn67 , November 10, 2013 9:30 AM
    @Clonazepam
    Don't say things like that about Soldier44, moderators permanently banned my account last time for pointing that out last time.
  • 0 Hide
    rwinches , November 10, 2013 9:37 AM
    I do like their windowed apps feature on the Tabs, they keep pushing with new ideas.
    They offer great products without pricing like Apple, Sony or Micro$oft.
  • -5 Hide
    ericburnby , November 10, 2013 10:20 AM
    Quote:
    Eh, 64bit, I am not going to get excited (although I do have android bias) until I see it being used to its full potential.


    It's already being used on the iPhone 5s with iOS 7. App developers are already taking advantage of the 64bit A7 to bring new desktop-class features to their mobile Apps. They are leveraging two areas:

    - Performance. They can now perform functions on an iPhone 5s that were previously not possible because of performance limitations. App developers are now able to do things in real-time that previously required time to process (or render). Think audio, video and photo here.
    - Code portability. iOS 7 is binary compatible with OS X. App developers who have already spent years optimizing 64bit code for the Mac are now taking that same code and porting it directly over to iOS 7. No, they're not bringing over the entire application as it's not possible to run something like Photoshop on an iPhone. But they are taking features from the desktop and moving them to mobile.

    The second point is a huge advantage that Android will NEVER have for several reasons. For one, nobody codes high-end Apps in Java. For another, Android doesn't have a "parent" like iOS does with OS X. All those high-end Apps that exist for the Mac can have code already developed for them moved straight over to iOS 7. And as mentioned above, this is what developers are already doing.

    Microsoft is the only other company that could achieve this. If MS makes 64bit Windows Phone then developers will also be able to port over features from the gazillion Windows programs already out there.

    This ability gives both Apple and MS a huge advantage over Android when mobile devices start getting powerful enough to run desktop features (which they are at now).
  • 2 Hide
    10tacle , November 10, 2013 10:43 AM
    Quote:
    The bigger issue with camera implementation in a smart phone is less the camera quality and more fast access to the camera. Cameras buttons should be mandatory and should bypass screen lock and needs to load instantly...


    I agree with the faster access to the camera. I can't tell you how many times I've missed a great photo-op (or video) unexpectedly and then have to fool with the screen unlock and navigate to the camera, and then wait for it to set up. By the time that happens, the moment is over. And to others who say "just go by a real camera", we don't carry cameras with us daily and everywhere we go, unlike we do with a phone.

    There is no reason that manufacturers can't implement a button on the side of the phone for fast power up camera access. But making camera buttons "mandatory" sounds a little fascist.

  • 0 Hide
    ipwn3r456 , November 10, 2013 10:51 AM
    So 64 bit exynos... What about the US versions?
  • 0 Hide
    therealduckofdeath , November 10, 2013 11:15 AM
    Quote:
    So 64 bit exynos... What about the US versions?


    I guess they could be using the new Intel LTE radio, which means they would be able to offer the same processor in all countries.
  • 0 Hide
    therealduckofdeath , November 10, 2013 11:16 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    The bigger issue with camera implementation in a smart phone is less the camera quality and more fast access to the camera. Cameras buttons should be mandatory and should bypass screen lock and needs to load instantly...


    I agree with the faster access to the camera. I can't tell you how many times I've missed a great photo-op (or video) unexpectedly and then have to fool with the screen unlock and navigate to the camera, and then wait for it to set up. By the time that happens, the moment is over. And to others who say "just go by a real camera", we don't carry cameras with us daily and everywhere we go, unlike we do with a phone.

    There is no reason that manufacturers can't implement a button on the side of the phone for fast power up camera access. But making camera buttons "mandatory" sounds a little fascist.



    Well, you can pin a shortcut to the camera on the lock screen with TouchWiz.
  • 5 Hide
    jbake7 , November 10, 2013 1:14 PM
    Lots of bogus info being put in the comments.

    ios7 is NOT binary compatible with OS X. The architectures are totally different.

    Most Applications for OS X or a desktop/workstation usually do not work well on a small device. So having OS X apps mean very little for ios.

    So android is fine.

    And no - windows phone not being 64 bit is not holding up developers. 64 bit is needed mainly to address more RAM.
  • -6 Hide
    ericburnby , November 10, 2013 2:19 PM
    Quote:
    Lots of bogus info being put in the comments.

    ios7 is NOT binary compatible with OS X. The architectures are totally different.

    Most Applications for OS X or a desktop/workstation usually do not work well on a small device. So having OS X apps mean very little for ios.

    So android is fine.

    And no - windows phone not being 64 bit is not holding up developers. 64 bit is needed mainly to address more RAM.

    When someone states 64bit is mainly needed to address more RAM then you know they haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

    iOS 7 has the same ABI as OS X. Of course you can't take an App for OS X and just run it on an iPhone 5s. But you can take your 64bit code and bring it over to use in an App on an A7 equipped iOS device. This is what many developers are already doing, and yes it's a big deal.

    I already stated that desktop Apps are not going to come wholesale to a mobile device. Why are you repeating it as if I said something wrong?

    Here's a clue for you: Apps (software) are made up of many smaller pieces (subroutines) that each perform a specific function (for example, a codec to compress raw video into something like H.264). Once a developer has taken the time to fine tune and optimize a 64bit routine to do something like video compression, then they can take that code and bring it straight over to iOS 7.

    This is what I stated previously and you seemed to miss. You don't need to take an entire desktop App and run it on your iPhone. But you could very easily take "pieces" of that desktop App and bring some of those features to your iPhone.

    As I said above, this is a huge deal. Developers who have spent countless hours optimizing their 64bit code can now RE-USE that code on an iPhone/iPad.
  • 0 Hide
    lazacom , November 10, 2013 2:27 PM
    Quote:
    - Code portability. iOS 7 is binary compatible with OS X. App developers who have already spent years optimizing 64bit code for the Mac are now taking that same code and porting it directly over to iOS 7. No, they're not bringing over the entire application as it's not possible to run something like Photoshop on an iPhone. But they are taking features from the desktop and moving them to mobile.


    How do you think binary compatible ??? You think you can run same code on completely different architectures simply cause it's both 64 bit and both are linux based? Did you forget one runs on ARM and second on x86...

    Yeah, Apple could implement some emulation on-the-fly, but at best it would get mixed performance, from 5 to 80% of original.

    Maybe it could recompile source for ARM, using standard libraries, ones for ARM, second for Intel, but similar things exists for other platforms.

    And android also have couple of binary compiled apps, but most of them are not, for more widespread public, there are many different CPUs to work with.
Display more comments