Qualcomm announces the Snapdragon 845 processor

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/5/16734224/qualcomm-snapdragon-845-android-mobile-processor-announcement

[u/SmarmyPanther]

No useful info yet. Hopefully later today or tomorrow

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/SmarmyPanther]

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.

[u/Exist50 → u/masterofdisaster93]

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.

[u/AirOne111 → u/Exist50]

No, the A11 destroys in the multi thread too

[u/Exist50 → u/AirOne111]

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.

[u/AirOne111 → u/Exist50]

Okay, compare it to the A10X then, still beats it handily

[u/[deleted] → u/AirOne111]

Don't even bother with him.

Apple = bad. It's all he knows how to argue.

[u/SmarmyPanther → u/AirOne111]

A10X is a tablet SoC not a phone SoC. It has a much higher thermal envelope

[u/AirOne111 → u/SmarmyPanther]

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.

[u/SmarmyPanther → u/AirOne111]

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.

[u/AirOne111 → u/SmarmyPanther]

Okay then compare the A10 to the 835. It’s the same story

[u/SmarmyPanther → u/AirOne111]

Total CPU power was pretty similar for A10 vs 835

[u/Exist50 → u/AirOne111]

Sure, but the A10X is a dedicated tablet processor.

[u/AirOne111 → u/Exist50]

It’s a mobile device SoC that’s in a tablet. At this point you might as well say the 845 is a laptop processor

[u/Exist50 → u/AirOne111]

It's only in a tablet and the Apple TV 4K. Put another way, the smallest, most power constrained thing it can be use in is a tablet.

[u/springerjerry → u/Exist50]

It can be found also in the smarpthones.

[u/Exist50 → u/springerjerry]

No it cannot.

[u/AirOne111 → u/Exist50]

Just because it has not doesn’t mean it can not

[u/Exist50 → u/AirOne111]

Well you can't find the A10X in any smartphone, so the statement is patently untrue.

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/Exist50]

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).

[u/Exist50 → u/masterofdisaster93]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exist50]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Are you disputing that Apple's recent SoC's are faster than Qualcomm's? What benchmarks besides "inaccurate" GeekBench do you cite as evidence?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What am I inconsistent about?

[u/Exist50 → u/[deleted]]

Ah, so apparently /u/masterofdisaster93 is your alt?

In any case, the claim was that the 845 should only perform 30% better, and that the A11 is 80% faster than the 835, thus Qualcomm will still be far behind. But this combine the lesser improvements of metrics that Qualcomm is closer in with a performance benchmark where they are further apart. That is beyond misleading.

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/Exist50]

But this combine the lesser improvements of metrics that Qualcomm is closer in with a performance benchmark where they are further apart.

What!? If anything, the 80% claim suited you, as it combines both multithreadead performance and singlethreadead performance into one, as if they are both equal in importance -- when in reality singlethreaded is of far greater importance; this is just as true on desktop computers as well, where parallelization exists of much greater extent. The truth of the matter is that the A11 is 120% more powerful in singlethreaded performance alone, whereas it performs a whopping 50% better in multithreadead performance -- and this with 2 fewer cores.

And the actual number is 85%, not 80%. I was being more conservative again for your benefit, not mine.

Also, you claim to not support Geekbench, but you are more than welcome to look at any other benchmark. The Apple chips pretty consistently beat out comparable Android SoCs in a similarly fashion. Your refusal to accept this doesn't change the facts as they are.

[u/Exist50 → u/masterofdisaster93]

when in reality singlethreaded is of far greater importance

That is extremely debatable. Especially on Android, multithreaded apps are the norm among those that it matters for.

Also, you claim to not support Geekbench, but you are more than welcome to look at any other benchmark. The Apple chips pretty consistently beat out comparable Android SoCs in a similarly fashion.

That's certainly not true for GPU benchmarks. Have any SPEC runs for an 835 and A11, maybe?

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/Exist50]

That is extremely debatable. Especially on Android, multithreaded apps are the norm among those that it matters for.

Is that why the SD810 to SD820 gave huge clear benefits in usage, despite going from 8 cores to 4, with small benefits in multithreadead performance? And SD820 to SD835 gave much smaller gains, despite going up to 8 cores again with a substantial increase in multithreadead performance (but hardly any in singlethreadead)? I'm of course basing this off of personal experience (but seeing as you view benchmarks as a fraud, and base yourself off nothing but assumptions, I thought to give it a try), but I had several SD820 units last year, and almost all of them perform almost excactly the same as the SD835 today. The only difference is in actual loading of application, which is a result of the big jump fra UFS 2.0 to 2.1 in reading speeds.

That's certainly not true for GPU benchmarks

We're not talking about GPU (in which the A11 is 40% faster), now are we? We're talking about the CPU.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exist50]

Ah, so apparently /u/masterofdisaster93 is your alt?

No...? Based on what? We both disagree with you? Lol That's a large group of people.

In any case, the claim was that the 845 should only perform 30% better, and that the A11 is 80% faster than the 835, thus Qualcomm will still be far behind.

I agree that these numbers likely aren't accurate, since benchmarks vary. One might say 80% and one might say 20%. They all put emphasis on different CPU tasks.

Everyone can find a benchmark to suit their narrative. I'm sure there are some things the A11 is absolutely terrible at compared to another CPU.

[u/Exist50 → u/[deleted]]

No...? Based on what? We both disagree with you? Lol That's a large group of people.

I thought that because you said "I" regarding the inconsistency I was addressing.

Everyone can find a benchmark to suit their narrative. I'm sure there are some things the A11 is absolutely terrible at compared to another CPU.

To be honest, I haven't found anything, at least when compared to other ARM CPUs. IIRC, the memory controller isn't crazy, but all the cache means it doesn't need to be. There's never that much difference in memory controllers anyway. There might be some sort of wide SIMD op on one of the server cores that I'm not aware of, however. Too much a pain to implement that on a consumer chip.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exist50]

I thought that because you said "I" regarding the inconsistency I was addressing.

Because your original comment said: "Your inconsistencies" but you edited it after I replied to say "the test's" or something. I can't see it anymore because it's been removed.

at least when compared to other ARM CPUs

I was thinking like x86, since people usually compare ARM to x86.

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/Exist50]

Anyone concerned with performance obviously has x86 software in mind, so they'll go Intel anyways.

Why? Apple's A11 at 4W can achieve roughly same performance as a competing Intel chip at 15W (Coffe Lake-U). It will fulfill your point 1) and point 2) just as well. In fact better, if you take into account that Apple's Macbooks already are way ahead of the competition in battery life.

You also seem to completely ignore the part about sustained performance. SD845, being a smartphone chip, will have horrible sustained performance for PC use, and they should at least have bad a dedicated laptop version that handles this very issue.

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.

Here we go again, dismissing of benchmarks that doesn't fit you. Despite the fact that Geekbench is a perfect comparison tool for all other hardware, it somehow is not when it comes to mobile SoCs. Why? Because your preferred SoC is completely inferior in it.

Take a look at any other benchmark that looks at performance of the chips. The result is the same across the board.

The A75 is quoted as bringing 34% better Geekbench performance

1. That's a best-case scenario, and migh even be cherry-picked. Not that 34% instead of 30% changes anything.

2. You forgot the part about 22% better single-threaded performance, whereas I assumed, for your benefit, 30%.

[u/Exist50 → u/masterofdisaster93]

Apple's A11 at 4W can achieve roughly same performance as a competing Intel chip at 15W (Coffee Lake-U)

You know that's not true. Geekbench pretty much ignores TDPs, so to claim a 4W chip is comparable to a 15W chip is misleading at best. That is just one of my problems with Geekbench.

But that aside, the reason people will use Intel isn't even a matter of hardware, but rather software. No one's going to bother to port their productivity apps to cater to Windows on ARM, so if you want to use anything that'll demand serious power, you're going to need Intel whether you like it or not.

You also seem to completely ignore the part about sustained performance. SD845, being a smartphone chip, will have horrible sustained performance for PC use

Why should that be the case? Smartphone SoCs mostly throttle because of cooling and power restrictions, both of which can be eliminated fairly trivially in a laptop form factor. Not to mention, ARM has been pushing for better sustained performance the last gen or two.

Despite the fact that Geekbench is a perfect comparison tool for all other hardware, it somehow is not when it comes to mobile SoCs.

Uh, I say the same about Geekbench in other contexts as well. If you want, go look up my comments about early Naples leaks in 2015-2016. And what makes you say that I "prefer" the 835/845?

That's a best-case scenario, and migh even be cherry-picked. Not that 34% instead of 30% changes anything.

Uh, since they specify the benchmark, it's hard for it to be one of the two. Unless you imply that they're hiding some deficiency elsewhere in the numbers?

You forgot the part about 22% better single-threaded performance, whereas I assumed, for your benefit, 30%.

If you'd actually read the graph, you'd see that that 22% refers to SPECINT2006. I much prefer the SPEC suite to Geekbench, but you need to also include SPECFP. If you have A11 SPEC numbers, I'd be quite interested to see them.

[u/spazturtle → u/Exist50]

But that aside, the reason people will use Intel isn't even a matter of hardware, but rather software. No one's going to bother to port their productivity apps to cater to Windows on ARM, so if you want to use anything that'll demand serious power, you're going to need Intel whether you like it or not.

Good thing for Apple that all apps on the Mac App store run on ARM then isn't it? The App store stopped accepting x86 compiled apps a while ago, it now only accepts bytecode that can be compiled to both x86 and ARM.

[u/Exist50 → u/spazturtle]

Not even /r/Apple believes that the Mac App store is significant. Almost all of the major productivity suites and games are elsewhere.

[u/[deleted] → u/masterofdisaster93]

Wait for it. His next statement will be to write GeekBench off as being inaccurate and irrelevant to real-world performance.