LG Optimus 2X -- world's first dual-core smartphone

Yeah, was expecting this a while back. Fully integrated multi-core processor, video card, sound card, RAM, entire motherboard, all on O-N-E C-H-I-P.

With 2 cameras, networking, and double the memory and about 8 or 10 times the processor of my first desktop PC back in the 1990's.

When are our brains going to catch up to the capabilities of our gadgets?

When are we going to develop useful applications for these beyond just gaming and communication and trading? Ok, so there's some, but come on...this is incredibly mindblowing that we have a dual core camera-phone-pc.

I mean add an infrared camera and a radar or sonar and we can start calling these things "tricorders".

Gyroscope!?! Accelerometer!?!

"Tricorder detects no signs of intelligent life captain!"

As much as I hate to see obvious ads on this site, I must say that a dual-core phone is interesting. I had no idea nvidia was moving in that direction. If only they would jump into the desktop CPU ring.

My experience with mobile Nvidia chips has always been bad.. They heat so much that the chips tend to just fall off thier solder points.
I've had to reflow so many Nvidia laptops and seen people swear they'll never buy Nvidia for any mobile solution.

Hopefully Nvidia have learnt from thier past mistakes for which the suckers buying Nvidia laptops have paid dearly.

If the battery still lasts as long as current phones, then this phone looks pretty awesome.
Now we just need some high quality games/apps on Android as they are few and far between at present.

When are our brains going to catch up to the capabilities of our gadgets?

I haven't seen a gadget that takes 35 or more pictures at a resolution that my brain and eye do and can interpret depth, texture, and many other tactile attributes from afar, and that's only competing with my sense of sight. Now let's watch it develop art from scratch....yeah, not happening.

Perhaps you need to pay a little more attention in class.

I haven't seen a gadget that takes 35 or more pictures at a resolution that my brain and eye do and can interpret depth, texture, and many other tactile attributes from afar, and that's only competing with my sense of sight. Now let's watch it develop art from scratch....yeah, not happening.

Perhaps you need to pay a little more attention in class.

1) I worked in a factory with vision finding technology exceeding that...five years ago...using an THEN out-dated single core celeron processor.

2) Have you played a Wii or X-box lately?

3) Combine 1 and 2 above and it's easily superior to your eyes, and this phone could run the software for all of the video, infrared, and motion detection simultaneously, because it's processing power is nearly double what that celeron was 5 years ago.

I haven't seen a gadget that takes 35 or more pictures at a resolution that my brain and eye do and can interpret depth, texture, and many other tactile attributes from afar, and that's only competing with my sense of sight. Now let's watch it develop art from scratch....yeah, not happening.

Perhaps you need to pay a little more attention in class.

1) I worked in a factory with vision finding technology exceeding that...five years ago...using an THEN out-dated single core celeron processor.

2) Have you played a Wii or X-box lately?

3) Combine 1 and 2 above and it's easily superior to your eyes, and this phone could run the software for all of the video, infrared, and motion detection simultaneously, because it's processing power is nearly double what that celeron was 5 years ago.

@QC, you are dumb. do you understand what your saying makes no sense at all. i know your a pretty smart guy...and i read your posts all the time...but this? your better than this

Combine 1 and 2 above and it's easily superior to your eyes, and this phone could run the software for all of the video, infrared, and motion detection simultaneously, because it's processing power is nearly double what that celeron was 5 years ago.

The human brain is far more complex and capable than any gadget we've made thus far. A single cell in your body is far more complex and capable of what it is specialized for than any device you can yet envision.

You're speaking utter nonsense here.

The human brain is far more complex and capable than any gadget we've made thus far. A single cell in your body is far more complex and capable of what it is specialized for than any device you can yet envision.

You're speaking utter nonsense here.

Our BRAIN is more complex, but certainly not individual cells, and certainly not if you only consider their end functional machinery purpose in the body. That's completely ridiculous of you to say that.

I worked in Quality for P&G, you moron. I know what I'm talking about regarding the vision fiding systems.

An individual human cell has a certain degree of complexity that probably exceeds a cell phone, but most of that machinery is for the purpose of feeding itself, growing, and self-replication.

Most of the differentiated cells, and even tissues, in the body are not that complex individually in terms of their "functional" mechanism, and work based on simple, uni-directional ionic stimulus.

A single cell in your body is far more complex... than any device you can yet envision.

I think you don't know who you're talking to, because you certainly have no idea what I can "envision". I'm always talking about A.I. and nano-technology, and citing life as proof of concept.

The claim that an individual cell is more complex than a computer is BS. It's certainly smaller than existing computers, but to say it's more complex is completely dishonest in every sense of the word.

You can store the blue print of your genome on a hard drive easily. You could store an accurate 3-dimensional map of ever molecule in a cell on a modern computer hard drive easily.

Based on size and avogadros number, we can find the maximum number of molecules in the volume of a cell because water is smaller than anything else in a cell. It's ~1.8 billion molecules. I have 6 gigabytes of RAM on my PC, so my RAM has 80 times as many machines as the number of molecules in a cell, counting water.

Even if you counted individual atoms in a cell, which is going to be close to 3 times as much as if the cell was pure water, because most of a cell's volume is water and only a few molecules by comparison are more complex than water, so I'll use an average of 4 atoms per molecule...

Well gee, there are still about 20 times as many machines (transistors,) in my computer's RAM alone as there are atoms in a cell.

Shall I consider how many "bits" are on a hard drive, or all the other transistors and wires on a motherboard or processor? The processor alone has about as many transistors as there are molecules in a cell, or about 1/4 as many transistors as there are atoms in a cell.

You can prove this based on avogadros number and the volume of a gram of water, and then find the volume of a cell.

Well gee, there are still about 20 times as many machines (transistors,) in my computer's RAM alone as there are atoms in a cell.

Shall I consider how many "bits" are on a hard drive, or all the other transistors and wires on a motherboard or processor? The processor alone has about as many transistors as there are molecules in a cell, or about 1/4 as many transistors as there are atoms in a cell.

You can prove this based on avogadros number and the volume of a gram of water, and then find the volume of a cell.

That doesn't speak to complexity nor capability. Raw part count doesn't imply superiority, especially when the efficiency is incomparable between the two.

It takes fewer genes to make a complex creature like you or I than it would take lines of code to draw one by a million fold.

The claim that an individual cell is more complex than a computer is BS.

Then build an exact copy of a functional cell from scratch. Right...

That doesn't speak to complexity nor capability. Raw part count doesn't imply superiority, especially when the efficiency is incomparable between the two.

Apples to oranges.

1) A PC or hand held computer is designed to do a lot of things that you wouldn't need on individual nano-computers.

2) The PC verifiably performs far, far more functions than an indvidual cell could ever perform. The only thing a cell does that a PC can't do (yet) is self-replicate.

It takes fewer genes to make a complex creature like you or I than it would take lines of code to draw one by a million fold.

Disagree again. "Lines of code" is ridiculous. A modern video game can fit in a couple gigabytes, with all it's 3d models, sounds, game engines, level maps,etc.

The map I mentioned above could even be extremely highly compressed due to repitition.

Then build an exact copy of a functional cell from scratch. Right...

nano-bots are coming, in a few decades.

Apples to oranges.

1) A PC or hand held computer is designed to do a lot of things that you wouldn't need on individual nano-computers.

2) The PC verifiably performs far, far more functions than an indvidual cell could ever perform. The only thing a cell does that a PC can't do (yet) is self-replicate.

Wrong, a computer can do one thing. Compute. Through math the functionality of a computer expands. The more complex the math, the creation of logic manifests. Simplicity to complexity.

You have no other manner in which to look at computers. They function based on a field of absolutes and limits. You have millions more complexity constructs on top creating greater flexibility and further environmental adaptivity than you can see from machines at this level.

AI is a very immature field, it can only mimick and cannot innovate, yet.

nano-bots are coming, in a few decades.

Then you'll need many more decades to even come close to the complexity of biology.

WOOOW! THIS is my dream phone, just wish it was an HTC :(!
COME ON HTC, upgrade batteries to 1500 mAH and go core 2 duo!

Then you'll need many more decades to even come close to the complexity of biology.

I think you mis-understand. There are a LOT of people both in America and Europe who are already designing nano tools, nano-engines, and nano-bots, and testing them in computer simulations that use real-world physics.

We're talking about synthetic engines that run on thermo-electric principles, or in some cases, use sugars in much the same way our own body's do.

Intel and others are talking about electronic transistors with 6nm gate by 2020, and 4nm gate by 2022. The 4nm gate demonstrated has 7 silicon atoms.

By comparison with DNA:
4nm gate = 7 silicon atoms.
Mass: 196.599.
size: 4nm * 4nm * 1.33nm.

Adenine: C5H5N5.
mass: 135.13.
size: ~6nm * 7nm* ~2nm.

---

So when we say 3-d optical computers, they've basicly already demonstrated all of the components. It's just a matter of design and mass production, which is going to take a while.

you have just witnessed the death of intel. NVIDIA has the means to squeeze them out of the marketplace. I've always believed that it was nvidia's long-term goal to take on intel, with projects like cuda and their igp chipsets, and now their own mobile processor. They need only take it a few steps further to scoop the mobile pc and desktop pc markets. NVIDIA will use their own gpu's to enhance processor performance, just wait and see -- certain things a processor could do will be offloaded onto gpu resulting in vastly superior performance, this'll squeeze ati out and give them a virtual monopoly in the market place.

Awesome there's nothing more intimately entertaining then reading these Boys argument of The complex Human Species over the Amazing and Stimulating Concept of the Ever so truthful reality of a Nano bot Species...I love you Guys kiss kiss ;)