I wish the consumer-facing story around the Pixel Visual Core was much clearer. I remember shortly after launch when it was announced that the phone shipped with the PVC, that the story went back and forth as to whether it was being used at all or was even needed, or in what cases it would be used.
None of that is unclear....a quick Google would have told you that they enabled it shortly after launch with an update, and now third party apps like Snapchat use the PVC so snaps now look slightly less potato.
Are you sure about that? This sources suggests the PVC only works for 3rd party apps... which means for whatever reason, the regular camera app is not benefitting from the optimized power/performance of the PVC.
They turned it on with the first update for Android Oreo last year. Mostly just speeds up the processing with lowered battery usage for the stock camera, but real value was allowing third party apps like notoriously bad Snapchat to have decent looking shots.
I know improving photo quality is an important feature, but that's a lot of dedicated hardware and research which will invariably come at a cost passed along to the consumer that makes getting high-end stuff more expensive without adding something that a decent number of us that just want okay looking pics of our cats will find very useful.
Flagships sell for close to $1000 regardless. Now would you rather they spend some R&D money into the camera or just give you "okay looking pics" and still charge you the same price? If that's what you need, go buy a mid-range device and save your money.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
14 Comments
Back to Article
NeoteriX - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
I wish the consumer-facing story around the Pixel Visual Core was much clearer. I remember shortly after launch when it was announced that the phone shipped with the PVC, that the story went back and forth as to whether it was being used at all or was even needed, or in what cases it would be used.shadowx360 - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
None of that is unclear....a quick Google would have told you that they enabled it shortly after launch with an update, and now third party apps like Snapchat use the PVC so snaps now look slightly less potato.NeoteriX - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/2/8/1...Are you sure about that? This sources suggests the PVC only works for 3rd party apps... which means for whatever reason, the regular camera app is not benefitting from the optimized power/performance of the PVC.
SharpEars - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
28nm? Seriously? Not interested at all...shadowx360 - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
The fact that it was built in 28nm takes nothing from those results in the final slide.tipoo - Tuesday, August 21, 2018 - link
That just makes a 16x gain more impressive.Maybe 28nm was cheaper, if it's that much faster and fast enough that they didn't see a new nodes benefits, why does that matter to you?
tipoo - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
Did they turn this on in the Pixel 2 yet, and what kind of difference did it make?They launched without using the unit, and the camera was already impressive, perhaps the best in a phone
shadowx360 - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
They turned it on with the first update for Android Oreo last year. Mostly just speeds up the processing with lowered battery usage for the stock camera, but real value was allowing third party apps like notoriously bad Snapchat to have decent looking shots.PeachNCream - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
I know improving photo quality is an important feature, but that's a lot of dedicated hardware and research which will invariably come at a cost passed along to the consumer that makes getting high-end stuff more expensive without adding something that a decent number of us that just want okay looking pics of our cats will find very useful.shadowx360 - Monday, August 20, 2018 - link
Flagships sell for close to $1000 regardless. Now would you rather they spend some R&D money into the camera or just give you "okay looking pics" and still charge you the same price? If that's what you need, go buy a mid-range device and save your money.mode_13h - Wednesday, August 22, 2018 - link
What do you mean "regardless"? You think that price is completely arbitrary?iwod - Tuesday, August 21, 2018 - link
Any reason why this couldn't be built in with the Mobile GPU? Instead of a separate chip?mode_13h - Wednesday, August 22, 2018 - link
They probably really want a direct connection to LPDDR4, rather than to share it. Other than that, probably not.mode_13h - Wednesday, August 22, 2018 - link
Makes me wonder what a Google-designed GPU would look like...