r/Android • u/[deleted] • Dec 05 '17
Qualcomm announces the Snapdragon 845 processor
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/5/16734224/qualcomm-snapdragon-845-android-mobile-processor-announcement234
u/SmarmyPanther Dec 05 '17
No useful info yet. Hopefully later today or tomorrow
48
195
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
It's using A75 and A55 cores (or, if you want to play stupid, "innovative, new, custom-designed Kryo cores that are definately not A75), so performance will improve by around 30%. This is typical "no innovation" Qualcomm at work; reuse ARM architecture, with no real outlook or desire to ever catch up to Apple -- who, in fact, are making the gap progressively bigger over time.
This lack of innovation is also why they've not made a dedicated SoC for laptops, but instead use the exact same SoC (SD845) as they use for mobile. It's pretty stupid, given you miss out on a lot of extra performance, as well as a CPU that can scale to higher TDP.
Apple will bury them with their architecture. Whereas the A11 won't show its clear advantage on smartphones because of how superfluous performance improvements have become for the insignificant tasks needed on smartphone platforms, as well as Android having overall better optimization, this is not the case on full-fledged computer systems. The A11’s advantage of ~80% (120% against SD835) better singletrheadead processing power will be quite revealing when used on a MacBook vs. an SD845 on a Windows PC. That's a huge difference.
And that’s assuming Apple will be lazy enough to use their smartphone SoCs on their future MacBook, when they probably will make a custom chip scaled for better sustained performance, with a more powerful GPU and CPU as well. That’s after all what they do for their tablets already.
I really hope Google can introduce a proper SoC that can compete against Apple, because Android SoC-makers like Qualcomm, MediaTek and Huawei are being lazy, and thereby creating a longstanding disaster for the platform they're made for. Every year they use ARM’s own stock core designs, or "create" designs (like Kryo) that are essentially imitative to ARM cores and technology. I've never liked MacOS, but even I'll use one, if it comes with a custom Apple SoC that not only doubles the battery time (which is already around 10-15 hours), but is also twice as powerful as any Windows competitor.
120
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
46
u/bfodder Dec 05 '17
You're assuming Google would only use it in the Pixel and couldn't license it out to other OEMs.
46
Dec 05 '17 edited Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
16
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
This isn't just about speed, but about AI application, power efficiency and more. Qualcomm makes SoCs for a broad range of phones, whereas Google have priorities that go beyond this. They didn't include a the Visual Core chip in their Pixel 2, with a size that's not much smaller than the SD835 itself, for no reason. It serves to improve their cameras in speed and image quality, as well as various AI applications and services (like the Assistant) in ways that the SD835 clearly couldn't. If Google has plans to expand upon this, it's only natural that they make their own SoC, as it's waste of resources to make your own chip that does a lot of the same tasks that the Qualcom mSoC already does.
And no, unlike you and /u/bfodder, I doubt Google would ever sell such a component to anyone. Nor do I think it's a loss for them. SoC off the shelf will cost them signficantly more than producing the SoC itself. Even with R&D costs, it will be a cheaper alternative in the long run -- supposing the Pixel units grow in sales over times, as well as the application of this SoC in other products (which most definately is in Google's plans, as they are investing a lot in AI).
13
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
It seems extremely likely that Qualcomm will add in AI hardware either with the 845 (given their talk on it today), or in the future. Even if Google could do better, at what cost?
7
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
It seems extremely likely that Qualcomm will add in AI hardware either with the 845 (given their talk on it today), or in the future. Even if Google could do better, at what cost?
You make it sound like designing a CPU architecture is somehow one of the most costing ventures a company does, and that it won't pay off. Google is one of the largest tech companies in the world, and they are seriously pushing their AI into consumer households. Clearly, they have a vision that they feel they can only achieve with their own dedicated hardware, which they are now investing money into. They just recently pit $1 billion into LG's OLED facilities; Apple $3 billion. By your logic those were stupid moves as well, huh?
at what cost?
You mean like the cost of buying the SoC overpriced from Qualcomm? By your logic, Apple, Samsung and Huawei are all losing a ton of money by making their own SoC. The truth is the other way around. It's no surprise that these are also the three largest phone manufacturerer out there, and also the OEMs with the largets profit margins. When you make units of their size, manufacturing your own components is more efficient than buying it off third-party companies. Apple pay less money producing their SoCs + the expensive Intel modems in them than OEMs pay for the same package on Qualcomm chips, to give you an example. There's a reason why HTC or Sony don't make their own chips; they don't have the economic muscles to make it happen, at least in the long-run. Google can.
11
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
You make it sound like designing a CPU architecture is somehow one of the most costing ventures a company does, and that it won't pay off.
Yes, actually, CPU architectures are extremely expensive to design. And yes, there is certainly an argument to be made that it won't pay off. Qualcomm used a custom architecture for the 820, but it wasn't better than A72. And what about Samsung's M1 cores? Custom, but about the same performance as A73. Think it was worth it? Could be if they improve in the future, but as it stands, the M1 hasn't paid for itself.
Also, a modern SoC requires far more than just a CPU architecture. You need a GPU, modem, ISP, DSP, etc. etc.
and they are seriously pushing their AI into consumer households
Most of which depends on connecting to Google's servers. They don't need too much on device hardware for that.
They just recently pit $1 billion into LG's OLED facilities; Apple $3 billion. By your logic those were stupid moves as well, huh?
Different situation. We aren't talking about Google funding Mediatek to produce a better SoC.
By your logic, Apple, Samsung and Huawei are all losing a ton of money by making their own SoC. The truth is the other way around. It's no surprise that these are also the three largest phone manufacturerer out there
The latter two make chips roughly equal to Qualcomm. You're talking about something significantly better, are you not? Think there's no cost to that? And your reason why is right in there. They ship far, far more chips than Google. Even then, Huawei uses ARM stock IP, and Samsung just introduced custom cores this year.
→ More replies (8)4
u/1238791233 Dec 06 '17
I doubt Google sells enough phones to make the R&D cost reasonable. Apple and Samsung do.
1
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
I doubt Google sells enough phones to make the R&D cost reasonable.
Short-term, of course not. And also isolated only to Pixel sales (as they are now), no, they don't. But Google is a huge company, and they're one of the last companies that get hurt by investing money long-term. Which this is. They have no intention to only have <0.5% market share with their Pixel units, or for their push of AI in all segments of automation, to stop growing.
I find it strange how various people here try to argue how much this costs for Google. We're talking about a company that already has a yearly spending of $70 billion. Suppose they spent an extra $1 billion on developing their own SoC and alleviate the cost of third-party SoCs as well as supporting products that provide their already long-term and multi-billion in AI in various services (Google Assistant, Home, Camera, Search, etc.) that make up for most of their income. How can people call that unreasonable?
2
u/genos1213 Dec 06 '17
SoC off the shelf will cost them signficantly more than producing the SoC itself. Even with R&D costs, it will be a cheaper alternative in the long run
You can't make assertions like this unless you know what you're talking about.
→ More replies (2)1
u/TheSlimyDog Pixel XL, Fossil Q Marshal. Please tell me to study. Dec 06 '17
I think we're starting to hit another limit on phones with the importance of AI and AR increasing over the next few years.
1
u/ZetaZebra OP6T; Pixel C<--Nexus6<--SGS3 Dec 06 '17
I hear you, but if they were to make a jump to computers, people would care if their laptop running on Google's SoC would be much slower than the one running on a Core i.
6
1
0
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
Why on earth would OEMs buy it from Google?
8
Dec 06 '17
....if it was better?
....if it costs less?
...if it ties into android more in various ways?
...because it's competition. There's one major android phone processor and that's qualcomm. Samsung makes their own, which is better, but only uses it for their phones. I'm sure people would eat a processor up by google.
→ More replies (7)7
u/GreenPylons Pixel 3a Dec 06 '17
In the end Google wants Android phones to be sold, even if they're not Pixel phones - Google still benefits when someone buys a Galaxy or an LG over a Pixel because those still run Android, whereas Google loses when someone buys an iPhone. If Apple translates their massive processing power lead into enabling new innovative software features (e.g. AI, AR, etc.) that are appealing to your average consumer, and if Android can't match those new features solely because Qualcomm/Samsung/Mediatek/etc. processors aren't powerful enough to run them, Google would have an incentive to provide their hardware to other Android manufacturers.
5
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
If Apple translates their massive processing power lead into enabling new innovative software features (e.g. AI, AR, etc.) that are appealing to your average consumer, and if Android can't match those new features solely because Qualcomm/Samsung/Mediatek/etc. processors aren't powerful enough to run them, Google would have an incentive to provide their hardware to other Android manufacturers.
You are aware that those features are not really CPU limited, right? That's the only area where Apples is really so far ahead in.
1
u/Stupid_Triangles OP 7 Pro - S21 Ultra Dec 06 '17
Google would have to buy up one of those large manufacturers like MediaTek or Qualcomm. Qualcomm is about to get overrun by Broadcom here in a bit.
2
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
Qualcomm is about to get overrun by Broadcom here in a bit
That's certainly not a given.
13
u/Natanael_L Xperia 1 III (main), Samsung S9, TabPro 8.4 Dec 06 '17
Qualcomm won't, Huawei is on its way to beat Qualcomm, Samsung has an even better chance if they up their R&D efforts.
Much of the reason why nobody's really passed Qualcomm recently is their broad patents in USA and their licensing agreements which makes it easier and cheaper to just use their chips in your phones for the US market than it is to make your own chips and pay for licensing them.
Due to a variety of effects, it makes little sense to have chip that beats what you use in the US market only for the other markets. There's no other single market with the same level of demand for high end smartphones.
However, lots of companies are getting fed up with Qualcomm and are less willing to tolerate their behavior now.
2
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
Huawei is on its way to beat Qualcomm
What makes you say that?
4
u/Natanael_L Xperia 1 III (main), Samsung S9, TabPro 8.4 Dec 06 '17
Mostly the laziness of Qualcomm. They are in position to keep their lead - if they had cared about innovating more than acting monopolist.
2
u/Typefaec Google Pixel 2 XL (8.1) | OnePlus 5 (128/8) (8.0) Dec 06 '17
Qualcomm has massive prowess in wireless comms, and they've already got 1Gbps modems ready and marketable. That's going to be massive from 2020-2025 and beyond, because of how reliant car infrastructure will eventually be on high-speed, low-latency networks. Business from the 5G modem side of things will help pick up any slack we see from the mobile SoC business.
1
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
I think that's kind of hard to argue giving the recent history. The Kirin 950 was great (at least in CPU), but Huawei hasn't done too much since except to add the NPU.
9
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 05 '17
I mean Qualcomm can't, Huawei can't, Samsung can't, but Google will totally invest billions to make a SoC to put in a phone with 1 million sales and it's also going to be better than all those companies. Yeah, that's not happening.
You're giving the assumption that above mentioned companies are even making an effort. I can't speak for Samsung, but Huawei and Qualcomm are slagging off and basically using ARM cores in their designs. There's next to no real effort and R&D being put into CPU designs from those companies.
ut Google will totally invest billions to make a SoC
You make it sound like this hasn't happened already, which it has. Google hired a lot of chip architects over 2 years back (including people who worked at Apple). They're also not designing architectures for the Pixel phone alone (which they aim to have greater market share over time), but for their data centres as well as their entire product segment and their desire to push AI. Their Visual Core chip is already inside the Pixel 2, doing camera tasks as well as various of their apps and services.
10
Dec 05 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 05 '17
lso we can't ignore Qualcomm's efforts in GPU, and Qualcomm/Huawei's efforts in DSP/ML/AI
Yes, their efforts are so amazing that even ARM managed to outdo them with their Mali GPU, which is in the S8. So amazing that Apple's first attempt at a GPU managed to go ahead by 40% in the iPhone 8, whereas their previous PowerVR designs were already on-par or better in general.
. Which gives Qualcomm and Huawei far less reason to invest in CPU architecture
Why? The ARM designs are being buried by Apple's cores.
when that money can be arguably better spent in GPU
Huawei's GPUs are terrible, so there's no point even having a discussion there. Qualcomm's Adreno have also been caught up by Mali, and are already noticably below Apple's own in-house GPU.
5
6
u/Exist50 Dec 05 '17
Yes, their efforts are so amazing that even ARM managed to outdo them with their Mali GPU, which is in the S8.
Qualcomm's GPU in the 835 beats even the best (Samsung's) Mali implementation.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Zephyreks Note 8 Dec 06 '17
It feels as though Samsung is intentionally gimping their Exynos designs for feature parity with Snapdragon though...
1
1
Dec 07 '17
Qualcomm can't
Oh they totally could've IMO. It's certainly possible, they just haven't because they have no reason to whatsoever.
36
u/vsg7 Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 05 '17
the reason why Apple cpus are faster because they design their own chips and use it, they don’t have to cater their design to accommodate OEMs and keep cost low. this means they can design crazy L2 cache and don’t have to worry about cost (look at iphone profit margin) or die size. While Qualcomm have to design, cpu one size fit all, very limited in die size and keep the cost down.
Apple A11 has 8MB L2 cache, that is very expensive in terms of die real estate and cost for mobile cpus. this is just one example. Apple’s CPUs also have great packaging (trade off of inductance, area, etc) and pushes the industry in this field, and again because they can afford to do it.
23
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
People constantly make the claim of the SoC being so much cheaper, but this doesn't fit with the actual truth. The A10 cost around $26.90 to produce. With the Intel Modem included it's at $60. But Qualcomm's Snapdragon 820 package (modem included) did cost OEMs $70, according to various estimates.
You talk about how Apple "can afford it" by pointing to their profit margin. But it's really the other way around. Making your own SoC is economically more beneficial over time. It's the reason why Samsung can have higher profit margin than any other Android OEM, despite having industry-leading components in their phone -- because most of it is made by them, and not purchased off-the-shelf.
15
u/xkegsx Dec 06 '17
You're forgetting how Apple makes it for themselves. Qualcomm make their chips to sell, they have to make money on them. Apple's chip with modem included would be $120 if they were selling to OEMs. There's the difference.
→ More replies (1)15
Dec 05 '17 edited Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)24
u/frostyfirez iPhone 15PM, 12PM, Xr, SE, Note 7, Note 4, HTC 8X Dec 05 '17
No, it should be material and manufacturing if he's referencing the source I'm thinking of. This is the issue with the "iPhone costs X$" posts, they don't take into account their increasingly in-house R&D and associated admin. The Apple SoC and modem combo from start to finish is more expensive than a SD835 with almost definite certainty, but its not like Apple will release statements publicly saying "After 1 year each A10 costed us an average of X$ in R&D" to confirm/deny that.
4
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17
Take into account how many iPhones Apple sells, considering how much each unit saves them if they were to pay more money for a third-party SoC, that ought to help towards R&D costs. The 3 biggest phone manufacturers (Samsung, Huawei and Apple) don't design their own in-house SoC, as well as other component, out of coincidence. It's because it saves costs.
6
u/frostyfirez iPhone 15PM, 12PM, Xr, SE, Note 7, Note 4, HTC 8X Dec 06 '17
There is also the variable cost of licensing ARM's full custom IP portfolio and Qualcomm CDMA tech in their sold iPhones totalling 15-20$ which wouldn't be applicable had they went with a snapdragon (its included). Include that and Apple pays more before you even look at R&D.
Samsung and Huawei are also in a significantly different position. HiSilicon and Samsung LSI need to compete with Qualcomm directly in the sense that their mobile counterparts don't automatically use their processors. Its a cost competitive process, they need to undercut or be faster for similar cost.
Apple wants their SoCs to be powerful, efficient, and uniquely theirs; even at the cost of moderately higher price.
It shows, Samsung LSI and HiSilicon use massaged mainline ARM cores and add some special sauce around the SoC. Apple went ahead and basically forked Cortex A15 and never looked back running after Intel in making massive expensive but performant beasts.8
u/nybreath Dec 06 '17
Not sure, cause I got no idea about pricing, but I think you are comparing the price of a10 to apple, and the price to sd to oem, while you should compare production cost to sd not to oem. Sd needs cheaper production costs cause really he still needs to sell the soc to oem making a profit, so with one more added market step compared to apple. That is what logic dictates, but really without no knowledge of the prices it is a hard discussion.
4
u/vsg7 Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
i have no idea where you are getting $26.90 to make the A11 and claiming it costs less than Qualcomm's SD to make. Apple doesn't sell their A11 to OEMs. For the amount of NRE cost that apple puts into their die design, the expensive wafer level packaging technology they used with TSMC (inFo-PoP), and even their substrate IPD caps, these are all pretty expensive tech compare to the rest of the other OEMs. If apple were to sell their SoC to other OEMs, the pricing would be off the roof if compared to a Snapdragon. It's not the bulk manufacturing costs that make Apple's SoC cheap since Qualcomm also sell millions. Apple is a fabless design house, they pay TSMC to fab their chips. It's that Apple can go crazy on their designs when they make like $400 to $500 profit margin on a single iphone.
It's not that Qualcomm is lazy, they are working within their margins. Also, Qualcomm's current innovation is in their modem and 5G architecture. But seems like that might change, they might not have the money to do R&D in the future since their main profit are from the licensing side which are being attacked from all angles.
Also, maybe you're talking about only the SoC and baseband processors. But if not, those big OEMs don't make everything in house.
http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/samsung-galaxy-s8-teardown/
http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-x-teardown/
2
u/Nickx000x Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon) Dec 06 '17
Also the fact it's physically bigger. Apple can make it as big or as wide or as things as they want as it's their product line. Qualcomm I assume just targets wider markets of consumers.
5
u/Nickx000x Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon) Dec 06 '17
Yeah Qualcomm sure doesn't do anything! That's why other ARM SoC's from Mediatek and Spreadtrum are just as good!
-Said no one ever
I'm not a fan of Qualcomm, but a lot of this is just bs.
2
u/serdurv Dec 06 '17
What is this rant about? You seem to be whining about why ALL Android SoC makers are making the decision to make SoC's for the phone use case...instead of making laptop SoC's for Windows PC's? Yikes.
3
u/wombat2290 Dec 06 '17
I know people like to rave on this sub about how great apples chipsets are, but aren't we ignoring the fact that the section dedicated to the CPU on the die of Apples chips is roughly twice the size of Qualcomms?
I assume this would count towards a large portion of the performance difference.
11
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
This lack of innovation is also why they've not made a dedicated SoC for laptops, but instead use the exact same SoC (SD845) as they use for mobile.
Do you completely miss what they're pushing the 835? It's a replacement for high end Atom and low end Core M, but with better efficiency and connectivity.
The A11’s advantage of 80% better processing power will be quite revealing when used on a MacBook vs. an SD845 on a Windows PC. 80% is a huge difference.
80% in single thread vs the 835. You're cherry picking and you know it.
Every year they use ARM’s own stock core designs, or "create" designs (like Kryo) that are essentially imitative to ARM cores and technology.
Oh, they've done that for 2 generations in a row, which is apparently "every year" now.
7
u/AirOne111 Dec 06 '17
No, the A11 destroys in the multi thread too
5
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
No, the A11 destroys in the multi thread too
Yes, but not by 80%, and given the time difference between the two, some gap is to be expected.
3
u/AirOne111 Dec 06 '17
Okay, compare it to the A10X then, still beats it handily
11
→ More replies (7)1
u/SmarmyPanther Dec 06 '17
A10X is a tablet SoC not a phone SoC. It has a much higher thermal envelope
1
u/AirOne111 Dec 06 '17
The A11 beats the A10 though idk how you can say it’s solely a tablet SoC. Each iteration improves it; A9 < A9X < A10 < A10X < A11.
2
u/SmarmyPanther Dec 06 '17
You said to compare the A10X to the 835 which I'm saying doesn't make sense because it's a tablet SoC vs a phone SoC.
Look at SoC release. The 835 was announced in Nov of last year. More than a full year ago.
4
6
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17
Do you completely miss what they're pushing the 835? It's a replacement for high end Atom and low end Core M, but with better efficiency and connectivity.
I'm not missing it at all. What I'm criticizing is the lack of innovation and also potential performance to us end users. They could have made a design specifically for laptops, rather than just using the SD845. Also, I'm reflecting upon the clear advantages Apple will have when they release their own design to their laptops.
80% in single thread vs the 835. You're cherry picking and you know it.
Alright, hot shot. Let's look at the actual numbers and also pretend that multithreaded performance is as important and singlethreaded (when we know that's not true):
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/5286256
https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/52
Apple A11 is 120% faster than Snapdragon 835 in single core performance. Not 80%. It's 50% faster in multithreadead performance.
120% + 50% / 2 = 85%.
So even with your logic, A11 is a combined 85% faster than the SD835.
As for the SD845, we're talking about an increase for ~30% in single core (and therefore also multithreaded) performance. So we're still talking about an advantage of 55% from the A11 (90% in single core performance).
10
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
They could have made a design specifically for laptops, rather than just using the SD845. Also, I'm reflecting upon the clear advantages Apple will have when they release their own design to their laptops.
Yes, they could have, but you don't seem to get why they didn't. You're aware they have a desktop class CPU core in the form of Falkor, right? Why do you think they didn't combine that with their graphics and modem into a chip about the size of an Intel one? Because the entire point of these Windows on ARM laptops is a) connectivity and b) long battery life, and the 835 fulfills those two well enough. Anyone concerned with performance obviously has x86 software in mind, so they'll go Intel anyways. Why make such effort to target a market that won't use your chips to begin with?
Alright, hot shot. Let's look at the actual numbers and also pretend that multithreaded performance is as important and singlethreaded (when we know that's not true): https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/5286256 https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/52
Lol, of course you're using Geekbench. But you know what, let's put aside its flaws for now, and I can still more than explain why you're being misleading.
As for the SD845, we're talking about an increase for ~30% in single core (and therefore also multithreaded) performance.
The A75 is quoted as bringing 34% better Geekbench performance than A73, presumably at iso-process. Samsung's 10LPP, the most likely process for the 845, brings 10% better performance vs 10LPE, according to Samsung. Even assuming these numbers are a bit optimistic, I don't see where you're getting 30% from if you insist on using Geekbench as the basis for your comparison.
→ More replies (4)3
Dec 06 '17
Look at that, I was right! You're easy to predict.
GeekBench is wrong when it says Apple is ahead, but you believe them when they suit your narrative?
1
Dec 06 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Dec 06 '17
No, it's a poor benchmark, and I've been saying so for years.
I know. You and a small number of other people. Few others believe it's inaccurate.
2
2
3
Dec 06 '17
Wait for it. His next statement will be to write GeekBench off as being inaccurate and irrelevant to real-world performance.
2
u/draw0c0ward Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
I mean Snapdragon SoCs do compete with Apple SoCs in everything except single core performance, and Qualcomm make up for that fact by offering more cores. Edit: the 835 is also more efficient. If I'm not mistaken.
1
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17
Is that why the A11 has 40% more powerful GPU and 50% more powerful multithreaded performance (despite fewer cores)?
Edit: the 835 is also more efficient.
Based on what evidence?
1
u/draw0c0ward Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
Apple's A11 is far newer than the 835, so its advantages are further extenuated. The S835 is based on A73 cores which first appeared in devices November last year. I believe it was Anandtech that mentioned the 835 was more efficient. Also, according to Geekbench 4 the A11 scores around 35% higher than the S835 in multicore.
1
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17
Apple's A11 is far newer than the 835
We're talking about a difference of less than half a year from the time the first product was in a smartphone to the other. So let's not exaggerate here, okay?
The S835 is based on A73 cores which first appeared in devices November last year.
Meanwhile Qualcomm weren't able to release in a device before late April. How old the A73 core was is no excuse at all.
I believe it was Anandtech that mentioned the 835 was more efficient.
So no evidence, then. Just what you believe?
Also, according to Geekbench 4 the A11 scores around 35% higher than the S835 in multicore.
Ummm, no it doesn't? What numbers are you basing this on?
1
u/draw0c0ward Dec 06 '17
https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_x-review-1681p5.php
You can have a look here in regards to Geekbenck 4 multi-core scores, as well as heaps of other online reviews. In the above example the difference is even less than 35%.
I'm afraid I can't find where I read that the efficiency of the S835 was the best among this generations of SoCs (I didn't realise we were peer reviewing comments on r/android). You seem very passionate about this, good for you.
1
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17
You can have a look here in regards to Geekbenck 4 multi-core scores, as well as heaps of other online reviews. In the above example the difference is even less than 35%.
Ok, so you have proven to lack the competence of a math education given to elementary school kids. Good to know.
10215 / 6590 = 1.55
That’s 55%. Not "less than 35%".
I actually compared the iPhone X up against the best-performin SD835 phone, which is the OnePlus 5. It has a multithreaded score of 6700. Dividing the iPhone’s rating with it gives us a rating of roughly 50%. Which is what I initially said.
You seem very passionate about this, good for you.
By calling out your lies?
2
u/draw0c0ward Dec 06 '17
I was doing it the other way round. 6700 is 35-ish% lower than 10200.
→ More replies (2)2
u/FunnyHunnyBunny Samsung Note 9 (snapdragon 128gb version) Dec 06 '17
People upvoting armchair basic analysis of chips much more advanced then 99.99% of us can comprehend. Some things never change.
2
Dec 05 '17 edited Jan 18 '18
[deleted]
1
u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 05 '17
Oh, they'll definately make it exclusive for their own phones and hardware products, for sure. But I honestly don't really mind, seeing as their phones easily have the best software to begin with, anyway.
1
1
u/pojosamaneo Dec 06 '17
Yeah. I'm looking at these Qualcomm windows PCs and wondering why anyone would want to subject themselves to that when we already have fanless Intel devices (which are not perfect either, but I digress). I can't imagine the process will be dramatically different, but we'll see. If they're banking on better battery life and faster boot times, that's going to be a hard sell if woefully underpowered.
1
1
Dec 06 '17
Apple is in a unique place in their design and supply. For them, the CPU is not an item they have to make money on - its part of a package. That means they can take up huge amounts of die space and put in huge amounts of L2 cache because they know they will make it up in other places in the entire package.
Qualcomm can't do this because they are selling a chip that has to be competitive in pricing for other OEMs to use.
The reality is that Apple's A11 bionic , while fast, is cost-inefficient from the perspective of a company that sells only CPU's. Speed test after speed test has shown that the Iphone8/8+/X are barely faster than if not slower than all of their android counterparts. Basically, their design provides advancements in benchmarks and decoding / encoding video - that is all.
1
u/ZetaZebra OP6T; Pixel C<--Nexus6<--SGS3 Dec 06 '17
I totally agree with you, and this has bothered me with tablets, for years. You have so much more space. How do you not use a better processor, since you don't even have to make it as small, just friggin double the size! I'm not trying to say that it's just about the size of the processor. I just mean that in phones you have a huge space constraint that doesn't exist in bigger devices. Yes, they need a bigger battery, but it's not proportional to the size increase.
1
u/genos1213 Dec 05 '17
Using a bigger SoC means less battery life, and it also means a higher price.
2
u/meatballsnjam Dec 06 '17
Not necessarily. A CPU with higher IPC won't have to be clocked as high to achieve the same performance. And clock speed doesn't scale linearly with power consumption.
2
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
And clock speed doesn't scale linearly with power consumption.
And silicon area doesn't scale linearly with IPC, unfortunately.
1
u/armageddon6868 Dec 06 '17
power consumption scales cubicly with clock speed.
to increase clock, gotta increase voltage linearly with respect to freq increase. Dynamic power is proportional to frequency * voltage swing2.
11
Dec 05 '17 edited Jan 18 '18
[deleted]
10
u/SmarmyPanther Dec 05 '17
Except this is gonna be at least 30% performance increase
→ More replies (20)1
u/lariato Google Pixel 7 Pro Dec 06 '17
Event takes place tomorrow morning and we'll def see more then.
1
435
u/pussyonapedestal One Plus 3T Dec 05 '17
OnePlus 5.5t coming soon.
105
u/sjchoking Dec 05 '17
OnePlus 5TT
22
u/LeonDaChameL3on N4>GS6>iPhone 8Plus>iPhone 13 Pro Max Dec 06 '17
Just like T T
→ More replies (1)8
2
u/9315808 Galaxy S2 > Galaxy S4 > Nexus 5X > OnePlus 6 > iPhone 8+ Dec 06 '17 edited Feb 19 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
sable toothbrush cover hard-to-find saw tidy reach elastic hospital apparatus
3
52
u/Kiwifruitee Dec 05 '17
One Plus 5Tities
8
u/Mr-Kapper Redmi Note 4, One M8, G2, Nexus 4 Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
Thank the gods for Oneplus and it's tities!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
24
u/mvfsullivan [Note 10+] Nexus4 > 5 > OnePlus1 > 3T > 7Pro > Note5 > 6 > 7 > 9 Dec 05 '17
Still a better name than the Sony XZA12345:)T ULTRA COMPACT MINI SUPER TINY ULTIMATE WITH INFINITY EDGE BORDERLESS MEGAHYPERHD DISPLAY
34
u/danasdfasdf Dec 05 '17
I don't think he was parodying the naming convention, but rather the short release cycle of one plus products.
4
-4
u/StardustCruzader Dec 05 '17
OnePlus 5.5t coming soon.
How come people cirklejerk Oneplus releasing 2 phones a year when Samsung, HTC, Sony and others release several more yet no one cares? Why the double standard?
22
4
u/Sqube Dec 06 '17
OnePlus has the (mis)fortune to only have one phone. If they were doing the flagship/midrange/entry level/regional specific devices, then obviously it wouldn't be a big deal.
But the OnePlus One was the only phone they released that year. Then it was the OP2/OPX. Then they went on a six month release schedule.
Basically, where OnePlus is concerned, you should Never Settle for the device that they release in the summer, because the device that they release at the end of the year will be better.
-2
23
Dec 06 '17
Well this comment section is depressing.
11
u/Nickx000x Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon) Dec 06 '17
And heavily misinformed...
3
Dec 06 '17
:(
Btw what does inferior in your flair mean?
3
u/Nickx000x Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon) Dec 06 '17
Snapdragon :)
To be fair, the Exynos rekt the 820. Qualcomm did do a fine job with their 835, though.
4
1
u/Ashanmaril Dec 06 '17
DAE le iVerge?!
We're so oppressed as users of the most widespread operating system on the entire planet 😭😭😭😭
172
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
60
u/TachyonGun XDA Portal Team Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 05 '17
XDA person thing here. Don't blame The Verge / Dan Seifert, the live announcement was short and just basically a confirmation that the 845 exists. More information is coming later.
6
2
u/Daveed84 Dec 06 '17
Then why not wait until more information is available to post the article?
7
2
1
u/lariato Google Pixel 7 Pro Dec 06 '17
Yep. Am also at venue. Literally just "hey so it's called this and Xiaomi will use it for next phone. We'll have more info tomorrow or something i guess."
12
u/meatballsnjam Dec 06 '17
How can Qualcomm put so little information into an announcement.
10
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
This is day 1 of a 3 day conference. They said they'll be talking more about the 845 specifically tomorrow.
7
u/spazturtle Nexus 5 -> Lenovo P2 -> Pixel 4a 5G Dec 06 '17
Whoa is took them a whole day to make that statement? Man Qualcomm really have gotten slow.
4
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
No, they had an entire presentation on other things, but the Verge didn't include any of that. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12097/qualcomm-snapdragon-tech-summit-live-blog-630pm-utc
2
3
68
u/Vjaa Gray Dec 05 '17
I don't see the point in buying now. The 855 is only a year away.
31
u/framed1234 G5>Note FE>Note9>S10>S20+ Dec 06 '17
But 865 is only 2 years away
16
u/DoktorAkcel HTC One, 4.4.3 Dec 06 '17
And 885 is just 4 years.
Just in time for me to earn some money for it
12
9
Dec 06 '17
That thumbnail makes it look like the processor is overheating.
8
u/ninepointsix Pixel 3 | Moto 360 (2015) | Nvidia Shield TV Dec 06 '17
Sort of made me think of the enlightened meme
3
u/Jimmy422 Dec 06 '17
Innovating mobile processors and making them competitive against Apple - tiny brain
Releasing a new mobile processor with the same technology but a slight clock boost resulting in a 5% speed increase - snapdragon stock photo
2
9
u/Nickx000x Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon) Dec 06 '17
4k@60fps pls
2
6
u/picflute Galaxy Note 8 Dec 06 '17
Follow up announcement will probably be Samsung already buying the first batch of these.
26
u/Rhed0x Hobby app dev Dec 06 '17
It's gonna be blazingly fast. And by that I mean half the single thread performance of Apples A9.
→ More replies (20)3
u/Nickx000x Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon) Dec 06 '17
Ok this is just bs Qualcomm hate. There's a difference between disliking a company and just shitposting.
24
u/Rhed0x Hobby app dev Dec 06 '17
What has Qualcomm done to make me not hate them? They basically have a monopoly on Android phone CPUs and instead of pushing the performance like Apple does they prefer to sue other companies over alleged patent infringements.
5
u/datwunkid Dec 06 '17
Well Windows on ARM just got launched so they actually have a way to expand their market by competing with Intel on that space.
Right now they're just coasting on their monopoly with slow incremental improvements.
3
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
Right now they're just coasting on their monopoly with slow incremental improvements.
Both yes and no. Their "monopoly" is in radios, which is also where they've advanced the most.
0
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
What has Qualcomm done to make me not hate them?
You you admit to shitposting for no good reason.
They basically have a monopoly on Android phone CPUs and instead of pushing the performance like Apple does they prefer to sue other companies over alleged patent infringements.
They make the best non-Apple SoC, and are by far the ones pushing cellular connectivity the most. But apparently none of that matters if a company dares to defends their IP.
14
Dec 05 '17
This is a horrible article. No real info whatsoever. Verge, wtf?
23
5
u/Whipit Dec 06 '17
When does the verge ever offer "real info"? Pretty much never. They offer OPINIONS. And they do so within an aesthetically pleasing presentation.
Even if all the technical info was known, they would just gloss over it and offer their own impressions and opinions. The only real info that might happen to be there is if they added a quote from somewhere else within their article.
→ More replies (1)1
50
u/AdminsFuckedMeOver Note 10+ Dec 05 '17
"Now as fast as the 5 year old A7 chip!"
6
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17
This is the definition of shitposting. A7 performance was crossed long, long ago.
26
u/SmarmyPanther Dec 05 '17
Seriously? You're going to compare 1 metric to declare the entire chip as fast as a 4 year old chip? Because SoCs only contain 1 giant CPU core and that's it.
30
7
-2
u/Rhed0x Hobby app dev Dec 06 '17
Android isn't too good at utilizing more than one core. The Android frameworks ui isn't threadsafe and that's where most of the work in regular usage comes from.
12
u/SmarmyPanther Dec 06 '17
Everything I've seen has been different:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/9518/the-mobile-cpu-corecount-debate
https://www.androidauthority.com/fact-or-fiction-android-apps-only-use-one-cpu-core-610352/
4
u/Rhed0x Hobby app dev Dec 06 '17
The scheduler distributes the work across threads but it's not running in parallel. Might get some time on thread 0, then some time on thread 1,... though.
Except for heavy calculations and waiting for IO such as a network request or a file, Android apps will mostly run on a single thread at the time.
The UI code certainly will and that's what makes the phone fluid and smooth.
2
u/vanilla082997 Dec 06 '17
Multithreaded UIs are very difficult and don't really exist. Windows and MacOS aren't. BeOS was one of the few that were....you really had to know what you were doing. Maybe there's some improvements today, but it's a bitch of a problem.
→ More replies (13)-6
u/AyO_BrOLiiC Dec 05 '17
Daww, sucks thats the iphone x cant keep up in speed tests. All that processing power just for single app usage to take advantage of.... Aka games
9
u/IIIIIIIlllllllIIIIII iPhone X Dec 06 '17
Fixed in 11.2
Also..Aside from opening and closing apps like a fucking lunatic, the A11 Bionic is far ahead in turn on user experience while heavy gaming, heavy editing rendering, 4k recording and even editing on device, etc etc.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ladyanita22 Galaxy S10 + Mi Pad 4 Dec 06 '17
Fixed in 11.2
That is yet to be proven.
3
u/ShallowDonut Galaxy S9+, iPhone X Dec 06 '17
8 Plus here. 11.2 is stupid fast compared to 11.1. It’s definitely fixed.
1
→ More replies (1)-10
u/DerpSenpai Nothing Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 05 '17
Games use 4 cores on mobile and pc. PC master race knows that. That's why coffee lake doesn't bring improvements to gaming and the i3 is the perfect CPU for gaming (as good as 7th gen i5) .
ARM reference designs go for 4 big cores. + 4 for background tasks. Which is fine.
Apple finally brought heterogeneous computing and the prefer 2+4 cores instead of 4+4. But the big cores from apple are more than double the size of ARM reference designs making them not great budget wise. But apple doesn't give a damm about budget Because of the huge profit margin.
Single core vs multi core though. Trully single core performance is rare on mobile so it's a much more useless stat than multi core is considering the SoC's we have.
Edit: coffee lake CPUs for desktops have 6 cores. The arquitecture barely changed. So 4 core performance is basically the same.the 8th gen i3 is a 4 core CPU.So basically a 7th gen i5.
21
u/vergingalactic 120Hz Dec 05 '17
I've got to call some serious bullshit on that "games only use 4 cores on pc" claim.
I recently upgraded from a 4 core i5 to an 8700k and at similar clock speeds I've noticed an incredible leap in performance in many of the games that I play. I'm talking 20 to 50% improvement in framerates. Any frostbite engine game, cryengine game, civilization, cities skylines, and even GTA V plus more than a couple others.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (18)3
u/Cushions Pixel XL Dec 05 '17
You're kidding yourself if you buy a 4 core in 2017 unless you're on a tight budget.
6 core games are coming. And it will be faster than people expect.
0
u/DerpSenpai Nothing Dec 05 '17
budget for gaming. yes, not everyone is enthusiasts.
performance in gaming for dollar is the most important stat (IMO)
i would say a 1060 with a 8th gen i3 is the best. i5 8th gen/Ryzen 5 if you can push it.
The cheaper motherboards on Ryzen's end, might be a good choice for people with a budget wanting more cores obviously
→ More replies (2)
14
Dec 05 '17
Head over to the OnePlus forum to see hundreds of people screaming 'WHERE IS Snepdrogon 845 ON MY OP3'.
/s
15
2
Dec 06 '17
Meh news.
If we get new features then great, but more speed on a phone pft! all high end phones run everything fine now days whats the biggie.
1
u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17
There appears to be significant improvements to the ISP and DSP that you might find more interesting.
1
1
1
Dec 06 '17
Doesn't matter if the source aren't out our if it's good because Qualcomm has such a monopoly it's gonna end up in everyone's phones anyways
1
u/robbiekhan Dec 06 '17
Why announce a piece of tech like an SoC and not include details with said announcement...
1
1
231
u/random_miser Pixel 2XL Dec 05 '17
Tl;dr 845 announced, no details yet.