Jump to content

Talk:Samsung Galaxy S4: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Reverted 1 edit by Frmorrison (talk): Please don't refactor other people's talk page comments. (TW)
No edit summary
Line 70: Line 70:
I was wondering if the first paragraph in the S4 article should describe the Octa Core processor as it does on 15 April, since the Octa core information is given in the Hardware section. [[User:Frmorrison|Frmorrison]] ([[User talk:Frmorrison|talk]]) 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if the first paragraph in the S4 article should describe the Octa Core processor as it does on 15 April, since the Octa core information is given in the Hardware section. [[User:Frmorrison|Frmorrison]] ([[User talk:Frmorrison|talk]]) 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:do you mean the [[WP:LEAD]] ? not sure which revision you mean exactly, but yes go ahead fix up what you think as there's been some confusing edits recently. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 19:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:do you mean the [[WP:LEAD]] ? not sure which revision you mean exactly, but yes go ahead fix up what you think as there's been some confusing edits recently. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 19:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
==Specs==
Here the specs from samsung to be added to page
http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I337ZKAATT-specs
[[User:Phonegeek214|Phonegeek214]] ([[User talk:Phonegeek214|talk]]) 15:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:45, 21 April 2013

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Samsung Galaxy S IV → Samsung Galaxy S 4 – Although it's unclear at the moment, it seems like Samsung is marketing it as the Samsung Galaxy S 4 and not Galaxy S IV YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Samsung typed the name with the space because of the ® symbol. On all the other pages from the US website, and UK pages as well, the name is typed Samsung Galaxy S4. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the best thing to do is wait for sometime until it is clear which one is the official one. If there is no official name, then we could use the most common name per WP:COMMONNAME --Ushau97 talk contribs 06:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incomplete Page?

Why is there no information about the new Samsung? The wikipedia page for Samsung S4 is empty. It has already been released and we know the full features of this phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastian2013 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troll attempt

User 69.70.231.94 is attempting to falsify the numbers on the Galaxy S3/S4 pages. I fixed some of the numbers that he changed, but dimensions and weight need to be verified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.70.231.194 198.188.7.150 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octa-core

I attempted to clarify this in the article. [clarification needed] The sources do not explicitly say how they are switched, but implied is that the pairs are switched rather than all four at a time. As this is handled by the system as a black box, more details may take time. The big.LITTLE article needs a revamp too. Widefox; talk 17:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are kind of vague on this point. I read the whitepaper as suggesting that all four cores would switch at once (so only the A7 or A15 architecture would be active at any given time), rather than having pairs of A7/A15 cores switching with a subset of each potentially active. The Ars Technica article says "each...core", but I'm not sure that is correct. E.g., from the whitepaper: "In the big.LITTLE task migration use model the OS and applications only ever execute on Cortex-A15 or Cortex-A7 and never both processors at the same time." The graph in figure 4 suggests switching of the entire set of cores as well. I think we need better sources on this, so for now it's probably better to vaguely state that the two sets of cores switch on demand, rather than stating that each core is paired and individually switches. (Since my own surmising is WP:OR, but just stating that it switches between the two sets covers both conditions. Neither of the secondary refs states how having CPUs running at different speeds would be handled either, further suggesting the entire thing switches.) I agree the big.LITTLE article also needs a revamp, since this is fairly confusing and not well documented. Edit: it appears big.LITTLE does potentially support asymmetrical clusters, even (providing more evidence for "pairing" of cores), but it's still unclear that's happening within this design. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is all WP:OR which is why I initially left it very vague, then to clarify plumped for the pair switching (per ubergizmo). After rereading ubergizmo and the white paper...it is just not in the sources. As this is all handled by the firmware, hidden from us all, sources will most likely be from ARM / Samsung (i.e. primary) and this proprietary level technology may be a guarded secret. This may be easy to test by benchmarking/power usage when shipped though. Widefox; talk 09:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree. After re-reading the ARM paper, it's clear that there's no mixed use of big and LITTLE cores in this chip (this use model). That means all four must be switched together and the (cluster shared) L2 cache statement about being left on for a while after switching for snooping by the incoming cluster then ties in. A good secondary source is needed for this, so it requires less interpretation. Knowing if the cores can be switched on/off individually would also be good to know. Widefox; talk 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quad core

Looking at the sources for the line that says the UK's 4G LTE version will only be quad-core, I can't find that in the sources (unless I'm being blind). Should this be corrected? Paulfp (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore me, I've found lots of sources stating it's correct Paulfp (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Display

The Samsung GALAXY S4 screen size is 5 inches not 4.99 Samsung Elections comfirm this on there website so i updated this on page Thanks.Phonegeek214 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [3][reply]

I believe the marketing is rounding it up, check the pic here from Samsung [4] and these refs [5] [6] [7] . The current refs in the article do state 5in, so I believe the most correct is to put something like 4.99in (sometimes stated as 5in) with a couple of definitive refs. Widefox; talk 18:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Widefox Check this link out is straight from Samsung there no marketing rounding and if you watch press release video they mention the screen will be 5.0" 1080p screen http://www.samsungmobilepress.com/2013/03/14/Samsung-Introduces-the-GALAXY-S-4----A-Life-Companion-for-a-richer,-simpler-and-fuller-life?marsLinkCategory=mphone:other.Phonegeek214 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is conflicting info - both from Samsung (did you see the picture in the link above?) and others. How do you explain the 4.99 refs? My suggested compromise is above. I do not know the answer, and a naive calculation based on the specs from Samsung in your link (1920 x 1080) display @ 441 ppi gives a diagonal of 4.9953inch which is WP:OR, and if we have to interpret primary sources it is WP:OR. Widefox; talk 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox the 4.99 refs are not true there are not taking by Samsung . You need to read the link I sent you above you will see the official statement and press release from news event im just trying give you a true source of information it your choice if you take or leave it.Phonegeek214 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of the official specs listing it as 5.0in. You still haven't said if you saw the Samsung roadmap on the pocketlint site? The site appears down this second, so here's a Google cache of it .. [8] . That is from Samsung (although spec is 440ppi not 441ppi). We report what sources say, and balance them, not truth - see Verifiability, not truth. As most sources are saying 5, some 4.99 something like "5inch (sometimes stated as 4.99in)" might be the correct balance. Instead of the article ping-ponging between 5 or 4.99 (as it has been with different editors), the sensible thing is to put both in per WP:WEIGHT. 4.99 can quickly be found ... [9] [10] but it is best to find a couple of good references for both 5 and 4.99. In any case, this should be decided by WP:consensus. Widefox; talk 11:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widefoxsaw the Samsung roadmap on the pocketlint site but source i got my information was directly from Samsung and have email from them that does say the screen is 5.0 inches so even if is 4.99 inches best thing is to round up. If that case s3 phone was 4.8 inches then we should listen at 4.79 inches but it really no big deal to me just was trying point that out.Also Att is talking pre-orders for the phone and list the phone at 5” Super AMOLED™ display boasting 1920x 1080 pixel screen resolution. 1.9GHz quad-corebrocessing power. Long life 2600 mAh Li-Ionbattery provides hours of continuous use. Features2GB RAM and 16GB available storage. Phonegeek214 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source (not very authoratative) using both [11] "5inch (4.99inch to be exact)". If my WP:OR maths is right, 4.9953in may legitimately be rounded to 5.0in (and is more accurate to round it to 5.00 (or 5.0) rather than 4.99). Anyhow, I repeat - we say what the sources say which is both. FYI, about Samsung vs others, Samsung is a WP:PRIMARY source, and we base articles on WP:SECONDARY. Widefox; talk 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we agree on "5inch (sometimes stated as 4.99in)" ? Widefox; talk 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph

I was wondering if the first paragraph in the S4 article should describe the Octa Core processor as it does on 15 April, since the Octa core information is given in the Hardware section. Frmorrison (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean the WP:LEAD ? not sure which revision you mean exactly, but yes go ahead fix up what you think as there's been some confusing edits recently. Widefox; talk 19:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specs

Here the specs from samsung to be added to page http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I337ZKAATT-specs 

Phonegeek214 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samsung_Galaxy_S4&oldid=551471925"