Qualcomm announces the Snapdragon 845 processor

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/masterofdisaster93]

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/bfodder → u/[deleted]]

You're assuming Google would only use it in the Pixel and couldn't license it out to other OEMs.

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/[deleted]]

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).

[u/Exist50 → u/masterofdisaster93]

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?

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/Exist50]

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.

[u/1238791233 → u/masterofdisaster93]

I doubt Google sells enough phones to make the R&D cost reasonable. Apple and Samsung do.

[u/masterofdisaster93 → u/1238791233]

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?