Android SoCs. WTF Qualcomm? We are going nowhere.

[ian87w]

Just saw this from Anandtech in their Pixel 6/Tensor review.

The graph shows that Tensor is behind SD888. But look at the A15 and A14! SD888 is faster than SD865, but it's less efficient as well. Meanwhile, Apple made the A15 perform better than the A14, and also more efficient!! The cores of Snapdragon SoCs, X1, A78, A77, etc are a joke compared to Apple's performance cores. And look at the A55... It's embarassing!! WTF? Apple is just winning the chip race here. Qualcomm is screwing Android flagships every year with such embarrassing yet expensive SoCs. Their efficiency is just sad...

And yeah, look at poor Exynos 990...

Seriously, we need something to happen here. Qualcomm's trajectory from seeing the progression of SD865 to SD888 is better performance and less efficient. Not a good trend at all.

 

[MarkX]

How fast does a chip in a smartphone need to be exactly?

The upper midrange chips like the Snapdragon 778g and the Mediatek Dimensity 1200 offer more than enough performance for the vast majority of users.

 

[ian87w]

How fast does a chip in a smartphone need to be exactly?

The upper midrange chips like the Snapdragon 778g and the Mediatek Dimensity 1200 offer more than enough performance for the vast majority of users.

Sure, for mid rangers. But when you are charging consumers $1000, there’s an expectation of actual performance of the hardware.

I mean when you’re paying for a BMW price, you’re expecting the engine to deliver the horsepower, even if you will rarely drive it that fast.

I mean look at where the A14 is, and compare that to the so called “performance core” generations (A77, A78, X1). They’re not even improving performance that much, while consuming more power.

Not only this is not a good lookout for Android flagships, it doesn’t bode well as well for Windows ARM as the performance is not going where it should be going.

 

[MarkX]

Sure, for mid rangers. But when you are charging consumers $1000, there’s an expectation of actual performance of the hardware.

I mean when you’re paying for a BMW price, you’re expecting the engine to deliver the horsepower, even if you will rarely drive it that fast.

I mean look at where the A14 is, and compare that to the so called “performance core” generations (A77, A78, X1). They’re not even improving performance that much, while consuming more power.

Not only this is not a good lookout for Android flagships, it doesn’t bode well as well for Windows ARM as the performance is not going where it should be going.

I guarantee you most people outside forums like this have no idea how powerful the chip is in their iPhone/Android.

Also, your analogy is a poor one. I do drive a BMW and it was expensive but it doesn't have the engine with the most horsepower available, far from it. Having a lesser engine doesn't detract from the fact that it still has that BMW essence and quality.

It's not all about power!

 

[Ludatyk]

I guarantee you most people outside forums like this have no idea how powerful the chip is in their iPhone/Android.

Also, your analogy is a poor one. I do drive a BMW and it was expensive but it doesn't have the engine with the most horsepower available, far from it. Having a lesser engine doesn't detract from the fact that it still has that BMW essence and quality.

It's not all about power!

I agree its not all about power, but from that graph… I think @ian87w has a point, however… I think they are taking the wrong approach.

They mention Qualcomm consuming more power and expecting better performance in regards to horsepower. But what’s more important than horsepower is efficiency. This year performance with the iPhone is a testament to the efforts of efficiency, which is more about the battery life… everyone has raved about it from all the reviews and forums.

As much as I enjoy using this Fold, my major gripe with it is the battery life… leaves more to be desired.

 

[ian87w]

I agree its not about all power, but from that graph… I think @ian87w has a point, however… I think they are taking the wrong approach.

They mention Qualcomm consuming more power and expecting better performance in regards to horsepower. But what’s more important than horsepower is efficiency. This year performance with the iPhone is a testament to the efforts of efficiency, which is more about the battery life… everyone has raved about it from all the reviews and forums.

As much as I enjoy using this Fold, my major gripe with it is the battery life… leaves more to be desired.

Yes. Look at the efficiency, or the lack of. The trajectory is completely opposite of Apple. Qualcomm is literally getting worse efficiency with every new generation, while at the same time, look at the A15. It’s astonishing.

And let’s look at “efficiency cores” A55… I mean it’s like we never go anywhere for the past 3 years, while Apple Silicon is going bonkers with its efficiency.

It just annoys me as Android is just getting even better, and there are more innovative hardware. But the engine seems to be stalling… Qualcomm is like “oh look, intel x86 is stagnating, let’s speedrun that….”

 

[MarkX]

This is an old article but gives an insight to why Apple leads the way.

Why are Apple's chips faster than Qualcomm's? - Gary explains

The benchmark scores for Apple's latest processor are very impressive. But why is Apple so far ahead of the competition?

www.androidauthority.com

 

[ian87w]

If Qualcomm doesn’t show significant improvements, the gap will be just getting wider and wider. The flagship chipset for Android will only be comparable to Apple’s “mid range.” This will only create even more price pressure on OEMs. Not really a good sign either way, with Apple probably having more leeway into charging even more money for their iPhones.

No wonder Microsoft seems to be getting back with intel (no new Surface Pro X this year). You can only do so much in software when the engine is just stuck.

Mediatek and Samsung are not doing any better. Oh man, such gloomy outlook…

The only thing keeping Apple from destroying everyone is their own greed (eg. Using old designs and tiny batteries for their lower end SE).

 

[SteveJUAE]

Whilst @ian87w makes a good point about efficiency we have all observed speed is not everything

The IPAD has spun its nuts of in neutral for years and is the fastest dumb thing out there

Our poor slow Samsung N20,S20's/21'2 and Fold 2/3 have had the AMOLED 120hz screens and true multitasking plus real desktop like experience despite falling behind the processing curve of the best Bionic chips.

Apple are playing catch up on many fronts as they spent the money on CPU and lag 2 years behind other features that Android users actually used and see in daily usage and have not been short changed by not having the fastest CPU

I agree the concern is maintaining or improving battery endurance and Apple have the advantage to some degree.

Samsung and Lenovo have already proved you can have a full ARM W10 20 hours endurance 2 in 1 that are far more capable than iPads and are now with MS held up waiting for the next gen ARM chips to take that further

Apple super new MBP's are targeting the wealthier segment and seem to becoming more niche by the day and similarly so over spec'd with CPU performance only a tiny segment would ever use that even on a daily basis

No denying Apple have some great chips currently but IRL terms other than battery efficiency its means little to most other than bragging rights

 

[nickdalzell1]

I mean how many cores does one need today? Does everyone suddenly use their phone as their only computer or something? Just to imagine that possible use reminds me of that scene from the movie RV where Robin Williams is typing an entire business essay on a BlackBerry, complete with painful results!

I can do everything I need with a Galaxy SII, and without updating a single app, that phone still runs like a new one. I don't even know what CPU it has but it still works.

I still make the argument that one can graduate Harvard with an i486. Work with what you got. Besides, with phones cutting features left and right (headphone jack, removable battery, IR blaster, expandable storage) why would one need more CPU power just to power what is essentially a screen, especially with so much modern OS relying on the cloud?

 

[ian87w]

I mean how many cores does one need today? Does everyone suddenly use their phone as their only computer or something?

It's not about how many cores. It's about the quality of the cores. Look at the graph. Even the latest X1 ARM core is embarrassing compared to the A14, let alone the A15 performance core. And yet some OEMs are charging $1000 iPhone-level prices for phones with these chips. And it's not about if you use it either. Imagine paying a flagship BMW price for a car, but you're getting a Civic-level engine inside. You might not need the horsepower to drive to the grocery store, but I don't think you'll be happy paying that much money for a "lesser" engine.

And yes, many people in my country use their phone as their first (and only) computer. This is also important for Windows on ARM. Without a huge performance improvements, Windows on ARM will never be a real mass market solution for consumers. Apple can replace intel with Apple Silicon because their SoCs have the power to do it.

 

[MarkX]

It's not about how many cores. It's about the quality of the cores. Look at the graph. Even the latest X1 ARM core is embarrassing compared to the A14, let alone the A15 performance core. And yet some OEMs are charging $1000 iPhone-level prices for phones with these chips. And it's not about if you use it either. Imagine paying a flagship BMW price for a car, but you're getting a Civic-level engine inside. You might not need the horsepower to drive to the grocery store, but I don't think you'll be happy paying that much money for a "lesser" engine.

And yes, many people in my country use their phone as their first (and only) computer. This is also important for Windows on ARM. Without a huge performance improvements, Windows on ARM will never be a real mass market solution for consumers. Apple can replace intel with Apple Silicon because their SoCs have the power to do it.

You’re very hung up on performance and this BMW comparison! It’s nonsense.

If we’re talking car engines then whilst BMW may manufacture a more powerful engine than Honda it certainly isn’t better.

Honda(Civic)make thee most reliable and some of the most efficient engines in the world. BMW doesn’t even make the top 10!

Less power doesn’t make a lesser engine!

 

[ian87w]

You’re very hung up on performance and this BMW comparison! It’s nonsense.

If we’re talking car engines then whilst BMW may manufacture a more powerful engine than Honda it certainly isn’t better.

Honda(Civic)make thee most reliable and some of the most efficient engines in the world. BMW doesn’t even make the top 10!

Less power doesn’t make a lesser engine!

That's just an analogy. Don't get too semantic on that.
All I'm saying, when you're paying a premium flagship product, you expect a premium flagship product, including the internals.

This graph shows that Qualcomm premium flagship chips are actually not that premium in its actual performance and efficiency. So the price tag, at least for me as a consumer, doesn't feel justified. And if we look at the trend, from the A77, A78, X1, it doesn't show a good trend.

It also shows that Qualcomm chips/the default ARM cores have a long way to go to actually be truly competitive with intel on x86.

 

[throAU]

How fast does a chip in a smartphone need to be exactly?

The upper midrange chips like the Snapdragon 778g and the Mediatek Dimensity 1200 offer more than enough performance for the vast majority of users.

It's about race to sleep.

outright speed isn't important, but efficiency is. it doesn't matter if you're fast or slow if your performance per watt is trash - because that means burning more power to do the same work.

 

[ian87w]

It's about race to sleep.

outright speed isn't important, but efficiency is. it doesn't matter if you're fast or slow if your performance per watt is trash - because that means burning more power to do the same work.

True, and looking at the progression of the A77, A78, and X1 cores, it doesn't show a good trend. It only shows incremental performance increase while using more power. That means there might not be any improvements in terms of efficiency.

And looking at the various implementation of A55 efficiency cores, it is in contrast with Apple's Efficiency cores, where Apple actually increased performance on the A15 while consuming the same amount of energy as the A14....

I'm not an Apple fanboy. I love my S21 and Galaxy Tab. But I want Android to be better as well, yet it feels like the SoC is not moving into the right direction.

 

[nickdalzell1]

Personally, if I'm paying $1000 for something I expect more, not less features. Cores don't mean a thing if all I'm doing is random Google searches, checking email, or playing MP3s and texting.

I wouldn't pay that much anyway for a modern phone because they're cutting features I consider essential, such as IR blasters and headphone jacks. If I must live without, I obviously pay less--which is why I paid $199 for a Motorola G Stylus over the latest S21 Ultra. Why pay more for less? The CPU, much like the camera in a smartphone means very little to me.

Besides, we're in a market of diminishing returns, and plateauing on tech. Modern phones today are not that different from modern phones of the year 2016. Not much has changed at all. You don't need Quantum computing levels to post to Facebook. You don't need multi-core rendering just to draw a UI that sadly has devolved back to the EGA flat design era of the '80s. Now, if we had holographic or skeuomorphic tech back, then yeah, we'd need that extra pep.

I personally can't understand what makes modern flagships so darned expensive when they have less features than the Samsung Galaxy SII.

 

[Hunter5117]

It is not just about perceived power aka what you see when you run an app. It's about what the phone can do in the background. The camera is a great example. iPhone 12 and 13 produce just stunning photos, a great part due to the AI behind them. For the average, non-photog user, this is an amazing capability.

 

[nickdalzell1]

The cameras in a smartphone will NEVER, and I mean NEVER EVER compare to a proper DSLR camera. Anyone serious enough about photos in thier life will never rely on a smartphone camera.

That being said, cameras in phones have been 'good enough' since 2014. You don't need multi lenses to pull off a good shot. I took photos of my pet deer in 2010 with a flip phone camera. It was...decent, but other than more MP we've not improved much. Skills in the end will matter more to make use of less. But still, anyone who cares about their photos in the end will have a proper camera. Much the same as a proper audiophile will have proper, very expensive audio rack gear. Not a bluetooth speaker.

You also don't need quantum level computing to take a picture. What was that saying from the UNIX era? Unused RAM is wasted RAM? Same goes for a CPU in a phone.

If one really wants to compare phones to cars, then it's like this. 99.999999% of people use a smartphone for social media, playing YouTube or TikTok videos, posting to Instagram, playing music, and taking photos, maybe texting or calling a bit. To add more cores and power to that typical use case is like buying a Ferrari just to drive to church on Sundays.

 

[Hunter5117]

The cameras in a smartphone will NEVER, and I mean NEVER EVER compare to a proper DSLR camera. Anyone serious enough about photos in thier life will never rely on a smartphone camera.

I couldn't agree more, digital photography is why I switched to Mac 20 years ago and I still carry a bag of cameras and lenses most of the time.

However, a large percentage of the population dont, but they still want and deserve the best photos they can have. Ditto for video. Why should Apple not continue to push in this direction for them, especially because they have the technology to provide amazing, albeit heavily processed photos?

 

[nickdalzell1]

Well I suppose since cameras are all that we get, we might as well go with that.

Personally, I await the return of sliding keyboards, different size screens, IR blasters and removable batteries because anything less is not only not worth the hike of price, but also unsustainable for the planet we live on, unless we all plan on living on Mars in a few decades.

Still, that flip phone camera did quite well for 1MP:

 

[hallux]

Honestly - I don't care much about benchmarks. How does it perform when I'm USING the phone? I'm using a Pixel 4a 5G right now, it performs well. Is it perfect? Not quite, but it gets the job done nicely. My Tab S7 performs VERY well, and is what I do my most intensive Android gaming on.

 

[nickdalzell1]

The Galaxy SII didn't even support benchmark apps. At least, not on any YouTube video showcasing it across Galaxy devices. But today, providing you find one running the original OS (Android 2.3, TouchWiz 4.0) and never updating a single app, it performs quite well, can still call, text, manage contacts, send/receive email, browse the web, play music, and more.

Specs don't matter if you never tax them. An i486 running Windows 3.1 will perform equally as well as a brand new gaming rig running a modern Ryzen CPU and discreet GPU running Windows 10/11.

In the end, specs only matter if you need them. If you use your phone for basic tasks only, you don't need tons of cores or RAM. Nice for future proofing but it depends on what you consider your future. Mine is doing things just as I did in 2010. The only exceptions are using certain contactless payment apps that depend on modern Android. But the overall use case of a phone for me remains the same. Music, phone calls and texts, email, and quick web searches, or taking notes. I don't ask much from a device with a screen too small to replace a proper computer. It would be hideously impractical to do spreadsheets, type extremely long documents, or do serious photo editing on a smartphone. I don't care what people say, a smartphone will NEVER replace a computer any more than it would ever replace a camera.

I mean, are there people buying an expensive ThreadRipper just to catalog recipes? Yeah, I guess. However to me that kind of waste just makes me think those people have more money than sense. There's being future proof and then there's just throwing money away for the sake of specs.

 

[SteveJUAE]

That's just an analogy. Don't get too semantic on that.
All I'm saying, when you're paying a premium flagship product, you expect a premium flagship product, including the internals.

This graph shows that Qualcomm premium flagship chips are actually not that premium in its actual performance and efficiency. So the price tag, at least for me as a consumer, doesn't feel justified. And if we look at the trend, from the A77, A78, X1, it doesn't show a good trend.

It also shows that Qualcomm chips/the default ARM cores have a long way to go to actually be truly competitive with intel on x86.

We get your point but its not all CPU where was Apple with OLED and storage for years they sold premium products with below par internals

How would you like it if your BMW could only be filled at one gas station or your x or y accessories only work best with and your hybrid BMW needs a different cable for charging LOL

Worst of all in Apple BMW terms SUV's and cross overs do not even exist, you have to buy a vehicle in every group

 

[nickdalzell1]

Technically if you look past all the marketing BS and their naming schemes for their CPUs, Apple's phones have the specs of a 2011 Galaxy SII or HTC Thunderbolt, but with far better optimized software. I'm actually surprised that they perform so well. I've seen jailbroken iPhones running Android 2.3 or 4.0 and it was...terrible.

I wouldn't own a BMW. Total money pits. You have to actually 'register' a new battery for the darned thing! Just like John Deere today. There's a ton of nice ones in the junkyard that had that 'half engine' light issue.

 

[zakarhino]

Apple's phones have the specs of a 2011 Galaxy SII or HTC Thunderbolt

??????????