Awesome Specs!
I think that this is truly showing how quickly mobile technology is developing; we've had quad-core CPU's for computers for what, 5 years or so (and hex-core CPU's for 3.5-4?), but with Android phones we have gone from single-core to dual-core to quad-core in what seems like a flash! I consider the Motorola Droid the "first true modern Android phone", and yet in comparison to this new LG, it looks like a circa-2005 Gateway desktop sitting next to a custom-built Intel 3960X 6-Core CPU/32GB DDR3-2133/Nvidia GTX680 equipped monster!
I think quad-core is absolutely the future, although I believe that the Tegra3 has the best "idea" in having the 5th "little core" to control things such as battery life and other functions that are not based on user input. With AMD and Intel focusing more and more on integrated CPU/GPU SOC's, particularly AMD with it's new Trinity "APU" (which evolved from Llano) although Intel's Ivy Bridge's HD4000 Integrated GPU is no longer a bad joke, it is only a matter of time before we see truly laptop-equivalent processing power without the laptop battery requirements make its way into our phones...
2GB of low-voltage DDR3 SDRAM is an excellent step forward, perhaps the best single one of this phone. As an owner of a Samsung Galaxy Nexus (1.2Ghz dual-core, 1GB DDR3 SDRAM, 32GB On-Board Storage), there are PLENTY of times I wish for more system memory; and now, with DDR3 chip prices so low ($1 for a 2Gb chip, approximately), it makes a lot of sense to start integrating larger amounts of working memory into these phones. Quad-Core Processors have the potential to use huge memory buses, and due to the small form factor, phones come equipped with SOC's that contain full GPU's, some of which are multi-core themselves. These GPU's utilize system memory as it would likely be cost-prohibitive to use the more-expensive yet vastly better-performing GDDR5 for dedicated video RAM.
Open up the bus lanes, 256bit bi-directional, and multiply the channels so that we are getting dual channel or even quad-channel RAM over an extremely wide bus feeding both the CPU and GPU, and those pesky "Force Close" and "xxx is Not Responding" pop-ups resulting from oversaturated memory would be a thing of the past!
Lastly, a 13MP camera is quite nice (although I think Nokia still holds the crown, lol), but whenever I see such high numbers on anything other than a dedicated DSLR camera, it makes me worry that the manufacturer is using a high MP count to compensate for subpar or straight up terrible image sensors... The fact is, 13MP is more than most people would ever need, especially from a cell phone as I don't know anyone who makes poster-size printouts of photos taken with their camera phone (and I do a TON of HD Video/Image and Uncompressed Audio editing). A camera on your phone is nice for those "spur-of-the-moment" photographs, when you can't carry a full-size camera, or even when you've forgotten your camera; however, it simply cannot replace a real camera. The absolute top-of-the-line camera on a phone is still vastly inferior to even an "entry-level" DSLR and looks like a pin-hole camera compared to a top-end EOS or equivalent. I have taken the exact same photo with each camera phone that either I or a family member has (Galaxy Nexus, Moto Droid 1, Droid X2, Galaxy S II, HTC Incredible 2, LG Ally, and about 6 others... also, an iPhone 4S) with all ranging from 3-9MP image size and then took the exact same photo with a Nikon D3000 DSLR camera (with a Nikkor 35-100 "standard" lens), a middle-level DSLR that stands above the entry-level but also can't compare to the flagship lines from any given manufacturer. All settings were kept the same as much as was possible (most phones don't allow automatic ISO setting, but it's easy to get an idea when you see the photo), the subject was a landscape with no noticeable movement, and all phones were set to output the photo in their highest-quality mode (either designated via MP or by "good, better, best"); oh, and flash was kept off and cameras were allowed 30s to focus while resting on a mount while the Nikon was manually focused to one point with no software/hardware alterations made to compensate for focus/balance/contrast/etc.
The camera was set at an ISO of 400, and it also output to its native format but also output a lower quality format at the same time (RAW + JPEG), and both were used to help identify where the phone's were compressing data compared to the camera.
Using the same 30" (current-gen)-IPS 2560x1600 monitor (2.07billion colors, custom-calibrated to be within 99.99998% color accuracy per pixel) that I normally use for HD video and photo editing, I compared the image quality output of each phone. Tools used included Photoshop Professional, Corel, Premiere, and a half-dozen professional-level programs.
The results: Camera phones have, on average, 32-34% of the image quality of a medium-quality DSLR. Focus on camera phones is poor, they lack a strong sense of depth, color accuracy was for the most part significantly off of the Adobe RGB standard to which all were set to comply, contrast was very poor with lighting playing perhaps the biggest role in photo quality, and they could only be edited so much.
Best Quality Compared to DSLR by MP-Range: 4.5-6MP was the "sweet spot", with the phones in this arena ranging from 33% of the DSLR all the way up to 68%! The Galaxy Nexus stands out, and surprisingly so, except that its color balance is not strong.
Otherwise, the best photography phone is probably the Galaxy S II... The iPhone had the 2nd worst camera with grainy, blurry images that lacked any focus or detail.
IMPROVE THE CAMERAS!
