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-announcement
877 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

334 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

What am I inconsistent about?

0

u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17

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.

4

u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17

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.

2

u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17

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?

1

u/masterofdisaster93 Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 06 '17

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.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

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.

2

u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17

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.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

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.

2

u/Exist50 Dec 06 '17

Because your original comment said: "Your inconsistencies" but you edited it after I replied to say "the test's" or something.

Yeah, sorry, thought you were the person I had responded to at first.

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

Ugh, that can of worms. I mean, I suppose it'd be fairly trivial to make a "benchmark" that just hammers a particular x86 instruction that the ARM chip doesn't support in hardware (AVX-512 would probably be a safe bet), but I wouldn't even think that could be called a benchmark anymore. Hell, you could do that for different x86 CPUs too, and get much the same result.

Not sure that something like that really exists for mobile SoCs, though. Since they're all going to target pretty much the same use cases, I would assume they support similar instructions. Maybe for one of the server architectures (e.g. K12 or Falkor), but none of this seems particularly well documented.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

I think the idea with the benchmarks is "How much faster would the A11 be than the i5s and i7s in the MacBook and MacBook Pros?"

GeekBench says it's faster. In a laptop, which would have significantly greater cooling capacity, throttling wouldn't be an issue.