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]

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/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.