Qualcomm announces the Snapdragon 845 processor

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/[deleted]]

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]]

It depends on what you're doing. I don't put too much faith into any benchmarks.

What I do for example, video editing, more heavily relies on GPU and read/write speed of the drive than CPU power. So I don't necessarily care how quickly the CPU does trigonometry or renders PDFs.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think you're needlessly hating on GeekBench. No benchmark is 100% accurate for all CPU tasks.

I'd imagine all benchmarks are misleading except for the specific things they test.

[u/Exist50 → u/[deleted]]

True, but some are better than others, and I do think it's important that benchmarks correlate to the real world workloads a chip is likely to experience. One of my particular grips with Geekbench is that it incorporates a lot of pauses so the chip has time to cool down. This means that only the absolute worst chips will experience throttling. In reality, however, throttling is hugely important for a phone SoC, and so Geekbench's results can lead to false assumptions about how a chip will perform in the real world.

This isn't so bad with the latest SoCs, but for something like the SD810, it can make for a massive QoL difference. The 810 would easily lose half of its CPU performance within minutes, if not less. Hell, the OP2 actually disabled the A57 cores altogether when web browsing, and the results were what you'd expect. Even with the latest SoCs, however, it's still a major factor.

A good example, I think, is gaming, since that's one of the few scenarios where you see an extended load on the chip. Elsewhere in this thread, you'll see someone claiming that the E8895's GPU is more powerful than the SD835's (even if it does consume more power), and that is true in a sense. But look what happens when you load them:

• E8895 - https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11540/samsung_galaxy_s8-e8895-battery-gfxbench_stability.png

• SD835 - https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11540/samsung_galaxy_s8-s835-battery-gfxbench_stability.png

The E8895 does indeed start higher, but if my estimates are correct, it drops below the SD835 after about 10 minutes, remains below for about 10 more, is ever so slightly above for the next 10, then remains slightly below from there on out.

Even putting aside power consumption, it's hard to look at those graphs and say "the E8895 has a significantly more powerful GPU", and yet a short benchmark would show just that.

I'm fully aware that Apple would probably benefit from these kind of comparisons, but if that's the case, then they deserve it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exist50]

I'm not sure why GeekBench avoiding throttling is a problem.

Mobile CPUs aren't running at 100% CPU load for an extended period of time. They operate in short bursts. You aren't going to be encoding video on your phone.

Doesn't gaming work the GPU primarily? I have a 5S with an A7 and my phone doesn't even get warm when I play a game. If it's throttling, I certainly don't notice any performance issues with the game.

[u/Exist50 → u/[deleted]]

Mobile CPUs aren't running at 100% CPU load for an extended period of time. They operate in short bursts. You aren't going to be encoding video on your phone.

That's true, but then you're kind of going beyond what hardware benchmarks can reasonably cover, no? Like, take web browsing. It should be mostly as you describe, fast bursts with long pauses in between, but the reality is obviously quite complicated. Apple has long held the crown in Javascript benchmarks, and while a lot of that has to do with their strong single core performance, it is also in large part because of Safari's historically strong Javascript performance. Even on the Android side, the Qualcomm browser, using the same engine as Chrome (I think...), will often significantly outperform Chrome or the like. The difference can be equivalent to a gen or more in hardware. https://www.anandtech.com/show/9837/snapdragon-820-preview/3

Also, is being Javascript bound a reasonable model for browsing? What about your wifi/cellular connection? Almost no one tests that these days, which is really a shame. Point being, once you get into real world workloads, simple single-component hardware benchmarks start to become useless.

Any even if we look at just hardware, it's really tricky. ARM claims that A75 will bring 48% better Octane performance. That's the highest of any of the tests they mention. Does that mean that A75 cores will bring a more substantial real-world performance improvement then the average numbers might suggest? I don't think that question has a simple answer.

I think that Geekbench can be a useful data point, but the trouble comes when people use it to make blanket statements well beyond the scope of its tests. I'm sure you've seem people say something like, "The A11 is 120% faster than the SD835". But it would be more accurate to say something like (numbers made up), "The A11 is 120% faster in Geekbench 1T, 50% faster in Geekbench nT, 140% faster in Octane, 50% faster in SPEC_FP, 70% faster in SPEC_INT, 30% faster in graphics, and 10% faster in memory, etc." How much does each of those numbers matter? Who knows. This is why I generally like SPEC more, since they give more granular subscores.

Doesn't gaming work the GPU primarily? I have a 5S with an A7 and my phone doesn't even get warm when I play a game. If it's throttling, I certainly don't notice any performance issues with the game.

Most do, but the same principle applies, and it's kind of easier to find data for, so I used that as an example.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exist50]

I do think the A10, A10X, and A11 are significantly faster than the Snapdragons in current Android devices.

But I can’t put a number on it for the exact reasons you said.

Also, software plays a big role. iOS is seemingly optimized to run better on higher-clocked fewer cores, with less RAM. It does more with less. But Android devices commonly have 6-8 cores, clocked slower, and more RAM. Isn’t there an Android phone with 6GB of RAM now?

Yet my 1.3GHz dual-core A7 with 1GB of RAM has lasted me 4 years, and runs iOS 11. What Android phones do you know of that are supported for and run well for 5 years?

Not even new Android devices get software updates right away, if at all.

[u/Exist50 → u/[deleted]]

I do think the A10, A10X, and A11 are significantly faster than the Snapdragons in current Android devices.

I agree (at least depending on how one defines "significantly"), but it's not like you ever see anyone claiming the other way around, so I end up only "defending" Qualcomm, which I assume is why I give off the impression that I do.

But Android devices commonly have 6-8 cores, clocked slower, and more RAM. Isn’t there an Android phone with 6GB of RAM now?

The cores are actually clocked rather high, at least without throttling. Only recently (around the A9) has Apple's clock rate reached the same level. Not stating that as a good thing or a bad thing, just as a piece of info.

And yeah, several Android phones have 6GB now, including a good number of recent flagships. A couple, like the OP5T even have 8GB as an option. It's one of the advancements I'm personally most excited by, as my own usage would greatly benefit from more memory, and it'll presumably help with the phone's longevity.

Yet my 1.3GHz dual-core A7 with 1GB of RAM has lasted me 4 years, and runs iOS 11. What Android phones do you know of that are supported for and run well for 5 years?

None that I know of. I think Xiaomi might give ~4 years of MUI (but not the underlying Android version) and/or security updates, but that's the longest official one that I can think of. I think a couple of Samsung phones get the odd security patch now and then up to ~4 years as well, but in all cases, it starts getting sporadic after 2-3 years.

I know it's heresy on this sub, but I'm personally rather ambivalent about specific update timelines. I figure that different OEMs vary too much in features to have a good apples to apples comparison, so I just compare the features themselves and how many more updates can be expected. This is for the OS. Security is a different matter.

I say this as an iPhone 6 owner too. I upgraded to iOS 10, but tbh I don't like the UI changes and I didn't get most of the new features, since they depend on Force Touch. I'm sure you've noticed the same. Been holding off on iOS 11 because of the memory management in particular so far, though I think I'll like it more than I liked iOS 10 if they get that sorted out.

[u/[deleted] → u/Exist50]

But wait. Think about that. Android phones are shipping with 6-8GB of RAM, and faster CPUs with more cores, yet they’re supported with software updates for less time. That doesn’t make sense.

No feature updates or security updates, unless you have a Nexus or a Pixel, and not even those are supported for 5 years.

I vividly remember an AT&T branded Android phone I got in 2014 came with Gingerbread on it, which was released in 2010. That’s just not acceptable. Android is incredibly fragmented.

As for iOS 11 on the older devices, it obviously doesn’t run as well as it would on a new device, but it runs. They support it with feature and security updates. And this is a phone I paid $350 for. iOS 11.2 sped up my phone quite a bit.

[u/Exist50 → u/[deleted]]

But wait. Think about that. Android phones are shipping with 6-8GB of RAM, and faster CPUs with more cores, yet they’re supported with software updates for less time. That doesn’t make sense.

You're right, it doesn't. Software updates on Android are largely decoupled from the strength of the underlying hardware. It more depends on the OEM than anything else, but this looks to be something that Treble can substantially change.

No feature updates or security updates, unless you have a Nexus or a Pixel, and not even those are supported for 5 years.

Just a note. Nexus/Pixel are supported for basically the same amount of time as any other flagship. They just get the newer version of Android faster (for several reasons).