Related
Much as I like my Touch Cruise, I think I'm already lusting after my next device. I was looking through Qualcomm stuff to try and find the difference between the MSM7200 (the one in the Touch Cruise) and the MSM7200A. I didn't find the answer to my question but I did stumble across a press release from November last year about the latest chips in the MSM7xxx family (http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2007/071113_Qualcomm_Introduces_Single_Chip.html).
As someone that is very concerned with battery life this is the bit that caught my eye: "Additionally, the three chipsets feature new power-saving innovations to deliver more than 80 hours of music playback, a full day of talk time, and more than a month of standby time."
Wow, those statistics represent a genuine step-change in battery life assuming they're not being stupid and quoting those numbers on the basis of using a car battery to power it! If HTC select one of these chips for their next device in 12 months or so, or a competitor's design with comparable characteristics, then I don't think that I'll be able to resist an upgrade.
- Julian
MSM7200A and MSM7200?
What is the difference? Is the A version the ATI enabled one? Could this be the difference? Could it be that there are actually two versions.
session said:
Is the A version the ATI enabled one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As can bee seen from Brew 2007 PDF presentation both should have ATI Imageon2D/3D chip.
imho the A version will be just a lower voltage binned version of the normal chipset.
Just look at cpus, intel desktop and mobile processors are alle the same, the only difference is, that the mobile versions work with lower voltage.
Hornet331 said:
imho the A version will be just a lower voltage binned version of the normal chipset.
Just look at cpus, intel desktop and mobile processors are alle the same, the only difference is, that the mobile versions work with lower voltage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suspect, based on the Google hits I did find, that there's more to it than that. There were some hits from Linux hacker forums where people were trying to port stuff to the MSM7200 and they only had code for the 7200A which apparently wasn't compatible (which seems to imply that it's not a 100% identical architecture). Also, interestingly, I found a hit from someone trying to put Android onto an MSM7200 and again the same issue, the Google code was only for a 7200A.
- Julian
I think the 7200A is a direct result of the Broadcomm/Qualcomm lawsuit.
7200 = Qualcomm infringing on Broadcomm patents
7200A = Qualcomm's attempt to longer infringe on Broadcomm patents.
I could be wrong, but I know that the MSM7200 is being redesigned asap after the patent rulings came out in favor of Broadcomm.
njmarchetti said:
I think the 7200A is a direct result of the Broadcomm/Qualcomm lawsuit.
7200 = Qualcomm infringing on Broadcomm patents
7200A = Qualcomm's attempt to longer infringe on Broadcomm patents.
I could be wrong, but I know that the MSM7200 is being redesigned asap after the patent rulings came out in favor of Broadcomm.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sounds like the most logical explanation. They don't want to lose the 7200 name (or version or whatever) and all the eventually, the community just makes of it what it wants - let's try to think normal, why would they use almost the same name with revolutionary power changes? Both are identical in functionality, but different in implementation or whatever - making sure not to cross the line again
SabbeRubbish said:
That sounds like the most logical explanation. They don't want to lose the 7200 name (or version or whatever) and all the eventually, the community just makes of it what it wants - let's try to think normal, why would they use almost the same name with revolutionary power changes? Both are identical in functionality, but different in implementation or whatever - making sure not to cross the line again
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to be clear, my first post and the link therein (the one talking about the huge increases in battery life) has absolutely nothing to do with the MSM7200/MSM7200A although it does relate to the MSM7xxx family as a whole. The link I posted is to the successor, or even the successor to the successor, to the MSM7200/MSM7200A.
There are two issues in this thread, both interesting in my view, but they are not related: (i) What the very latest chips fairly recently announced in the MSM7xxx family will be capable of, and (ii) what the heck is the difference between the now rather old (in the fast moving world of mobile techology) MSM7200 and MSM7200A chips.
Re the second issue and the theory that the 7200A is the non-infringing version, I agree that appears plausible but I'm still not convinced. I just found this fairly random link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PIL/is_2007_Feb_20/ai_n18619481) of some random news site picking up a Qualcomm press release from Feb 2007. This press release is for the MSM7225 but what is interesting is that even a year ago it explicitly mentions the MSM7200A. Surely if the A version was a re-design because of the Broadcom issue then they wouldn't have been name-checking it in press releases a year ago?
- Julian
Maybe they hoped the MSM7200 would not be sued ? And they made a backup MSM7200A? I doubt it but hey, we might never find out, or the truth will come out one of these days
MSM7200 versus MSM7200a
The MSM7200a is the 65nm version of the MSM7200 (90nm). The big difference is a speed boost for the ARM11 processor from 400MHz to 528MHz. I assume that there should be some benefits to battery life as well...not sure about any other changes.
Slacker
Also the msm7200a should allow video output up to 800x480.
dara
Qualcomm's own press release of the MSM7500
The ATi Imageon is built into the Main CPU along with the ARM11. Not too clear about the difference between the msm7200 and the msm7500 though.
The theories I've heard are:
MSM7200 has 2 ARM9 cores and ATi's Imageon while the MSM7500 has an ARM11, ARM9, and ATi Imageon
and
MSM7200 is the GSM/HSDPA version of the MSM7500
http://www.ent.eetchina.com/PDF/2007FEB/DTCOL_2007FEB15_AVDE_RFR_AN_01.pdf?SOURCES=DOWNLOAD
Integrated 400 MHz ARM11™ applications
processor and 274 MHz ARM9™ microprocessor
deliver accelerated applications processing and
simultaneous modem processing; the dual-core
implementation provides hardware-based
security domains
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My question about Qualcomm CPU:
Is in Polaris supported CPU scaling or is constant 400MHz?
Is there any software that show CPU speed on device with Qualcomm processor? I only find battery consumption with idle cpu status but this is not 100% answer about scaling.
Have a look at this video as found here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=1974776&postcount=1430
jyan_osu said:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/28/android-gets-handled-now-with-street-view/
About halfway through the video the person shows a demo of Quake.. listen to the chipset he mentions the phone has.. Than shake your fist at whoever won't let us have the driver...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hate to quote my self but, i'll make an exception...
gnick666 said:
I know Android isn't very popular around here... but i found something interesting
http://www.helloandroid.com/node/22
Original Post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=1961765&postcount=250
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is BASED on the Qualcomm chipsets...
lazik said:
My question about Qualcomm CPU:
Is in Polaris supported CPU scaling or is constant 400MHz?
Is there any software that show CPU speed on device with Qualcomm processor? I only find battery consumption with idle cpu status but this is not 100% answer about scaling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no app that can scale the dualcore CPU of the MSM 7x000 based devices, yet.
And i don't know if there is any intelligent scaleing function in it...
The news broke that the samsung galaxy s iii will be arriving to all major us carriers in June. here is the article on the verge.
The official announcement confirms that it will launch with Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 1.5 GHz dual core CPU and 2GB of internal RAM vs the Exynos 4212(5250 need to verify which version they used) 1.4 GHz Quad-core and 1 GB of internal RAM
Can someone that knows what they are talking about tell me if there's a significant difference between the two specs I presented and which one will be faster vs battery consumption?
I am a T-Mobile customer, and looks like the SGSIII is said to come with HSPA+ with 42Mbps+, while the international version will be HSPA+ with 21Mbps+, on paper it is double the speed, what is the difference, is there sufficient coverage? I looked at the map for T-Mobile Data and they only show the strength of signal and don't differentiate the two.
so far here's the only real answer i've gotten on this topic?? anyone agrees?? disagrees? why?
krepler said:
Let me start by saying I'm not a pro when it comes to electronics but I do have an understanding on the subject.
The thing to realize about these processors, and most other processors available today, is that the s4 is based on the cortex a15 while the tegra 3 along with the new Samsung are based on the a9. The a15, at the same Hz and die size is 40% faster than the a9.
S4 = dual core Cortex A15 @ 1.5GHz - 28NM
Tegra3 = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 40NM
Exynos 4(Samsung) = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 32NM
S4 so far, in theory, is 40% faster per core, but having two less. Individual apps will run faster unless they utilize all four cores on the tegra3. Because the s4 has a smaller die size, it will consume less energy per core.
The actual technology behind these chips that the manufacturers come up with will also affect the performance output, but the general idea is there. Hope that helps to understand a little better how the two chips will differ in performance.
Sent from my shiny One XL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry if i'm posting in wrong section, I thought of posting it in the GSIII general forum, but only international versions available, I'll get biased answers, my guess is also the SII users at least recent ones won't be upgrading, and I know the HTC One users will just try to make it look like their phone is better. I need an unbiased opinion. lol
At a high level, Samsung's Galaxy S 4 integrates Qualcomm's Snapdragon 600 SoC. From what Qualcomm told us about Snapdragon 600, we're dealing with four Krait 300 cores and an Adreno 320 GPU. The Krait 300 cores themselves are supposed to improve performance per clock over the original Krait CPU (Krait 200) through a handful of low level microarchitectural tweaks that we've gone through here. The Krait 300 design also allegedly improves the ability to run at higher frequencies without resorting to higher voltages. This isn't the first time we've talked about Snapdragon 600, but since then a few things have come to light.
For starters, Chipworks got their hands on a Snapdragon 600 SoC (from an HTC One) and delayered the SoC. In its investigation, Chipworks discovered that Snapdragon 600 had the exact same die area as the previous generation Snapdragon S4 Pro (APQ8064). Also, although you'd expect APQ8064T markings on the chip itself, the part carried the same APQ8064 label as previous S4 Pro designs.
Chipworks did note however that there were some subtle differences between a standard APQ8064 and the Snapdragon 600 SoC from the HTC One. The Snapdragon 600 from the One is labeled with an Avenger2 codename rather than Avenger, the latter was apparently present on prior APQ8064 designs. Chipworks also noticed differences in the topmost metal layer, although it's not clear whether or not they stopped there or found no differences in lower layers.
All of this points to a much more subtle set of physical differences between APQ8064 and the earliest Snapdragon 600s. Metal layer changes are often used to fix bugs in silicon without requiring a complete respin which can be costly and create additional delays. It's entirely possible that Krait 300 was actually just a bug fixed Krait 200, which would explain the identical die size and slight differences elsewhere.
That brings us to the Galaxy S 4. It's immediately apparent that something is different here because Samsung is shipping the Snapdragon 600 at a higher frequency than any other OEM. The Krait 300 cores in SGS4 can run at up to 1.9GHz vs. 1.7GHz for everyone else. Curiously enough, 1.9GHz is the max frequency that Qualcomm mentioned when it first announced Snapdragon 600.
Samsung is obviously a very large customer, so at first glance we assumed it could simply demand a better bin of Snapdragon 600 than its lower volume competitors. Looking a bit deeper however, we see that the Galaxy S 4 uses something different entirely.
Digging through the Galaxy S 4 kernel source we see references to an APQ8064AB part. As a recap, APQ8064 was the first quad-core Krait 200 SoC with no integrated modem, more commonly referred to as Snapdragon S4 Pro. APQ8064T was supposed to be its higher clocked/Krait 300 based successor that ended up with the marketing name Snapdragon 600. APQ8064AB however is, at this point, unique to the Galaxy S 4 but still carries the Snapdragon 600 marketing name.
If we had to guess, we might be looking at an actual respin of the APQ8064 silicon in APQ8064AB. Assuming Qualcomm isn't playing any funny games here, APQ8064AB may simply be a respin capable of hitting higher frequencies. We'll have to keep a close eye on this going forward, but it's clear to me that the Galaxy S 4 is shipping with something different than everyone else who has a Snapdragon 600 at this point.
Source - http://anandtech.com/show/6914/samsung-galaxy-s-4-review/3
this is very interesting, I hope that's the case
then a little overclocking will probably not hurt?
Do people over clock just because they can? Or do they need to for some application?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
SlimJ87D said:
Do people over clock just because they can? Or do they need to for some application?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
may help with games and performance
but for me 1.9ghz just doesn't sound right xD I like even numbers, and numbers that sound good.
1.9 just sounds annoying to me, yes I know. dumb reason to overclock but if it doesn't hurt...
Just saw the specs for the new lg opt g pro.. its also got a 1.7ghz s600 processor
This is interesting I would like to see how this develops..
In4info
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda app-developers app
This is interesting.
I will sub for topic, keep us informed.
Looking onto it.
Sent from my LT26i using xda app-developers app
Samsung is a key player ann the biggest producer of microcontrollers and soc. So definitely they may have a deal with qualcomm , that their team wanted to tweak the soc before finishing. So in this way they might have added some special capabilities to distinguish it from others.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
qazibasit said:
Samsung is a key player ann the biggest producer of microcontrollers and soc. So definitely they may have a deal with qualcomm , that their team wanted to tweak the soc before finishing. So in this way they might have added some special capabilities to distinguish it from others.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I highly doubt Samsung had any design work in Qualcomm's chip. They probably asked "How can we clock it to 1.9 and not overheat." And Qualcomm said "We can, don't' worry."
It's clear that Samsung had big problems into bringing the new Exynos octa and the HD Amoled screen (they even considered shipping the S4 with lcds - that's why the initial firmwares used a white theme) to the market in time for the S4 launch.
My guess is they knew that they will not have enough Exynos octa cpus for the huge demand of the S4 so they had to search elsewhere for something similar. Who else could deliver this? Qualcomm - their biggest competitor. Unfortunately the S800 (which would offer very much the same performances or even better) wasn't ready so... only the S600 remained... which wasnt enough.
What do you do when you want to get more performance out of a cpu? You overclock it! I think it's pretty safe to assume they use some higher binned cpus for this but it is also possible they made some architecture changes, tweaks, to make this jump from 1,7 Ghz to 1,9 Ghz feasible in time.
As people start to receive their S4s, I'm sure this story would develop into something very interesting...
anandtech's most probably right that its nothing more den a respin with better binning. in the semicon industry we typically slap on a new appended codename on respun sillicon.
I was a little intrigued by this too because the galaxy s4 had much better graphics benchmaks than the HTC One even if they both had the S600. though it might be updated drivers 4.2.2 > 4.1.2 or maybe the the gpu is just simply overclocked at maybe 450mhz because we get similar offscreen results with the HTC One at 450mhz.
Wait so the 800snapdragon is equal or more the octocore? and the 600 is weaker? so how weak is the 600series
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
---------- Post added at 11:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 PM ----------
I thought the octocore was as powerful as the 600 not the 800 and I thought the 800 was double that of the 600 and octocore cause it can play 4k videos in ultra hd and use have the battery of the 600? and as far as I know the octocore can handle 4k like the 800snapdragon so I doubt the octocore is anywhere near the level of the 800 I think its between the 600 and the 800 but it does perform equal to the 800.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
gabrielpina4 said:
Wait so the 800snapdragon is equal or more the octocore? and the 600 is weaker? so how weak is the 600series
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
---------- Post added at 11:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 PM ----------
I thought the octocore was as powerful as the 600 not the 800 and I thought the 800s double that of the 600 and octocore cause it can play 4k videos in ultra hd and use have the battery of the 600? and as far as I know the octocore can handle 4k like the 800snapdragon so I doubt the octocore is anywhere near the level of the 800 I think its between the 600 and the 800 but it does perform equal to the 800.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The octocore is just slightly more powerful. Though there is absolutely no difference in everyday use. One thing to note is that the adreno 320 is just as powerful as the sgx544mp3 in the octocore. When oced the adreno 320 is actually more performant and since that is what really matters nowadays in gaming the S600 MIGHT be a little better. The S800 completely destroys both of them cpu and gpu wise. The S800 ate the ipad 4 so it completely obliterates the S600 and sgx544mp3 in the octocore
crzykiller said:
The octocore is just slightly more powerful. Though there is absolutely no difference in everyday use. One thing to note is that the adreno 320 is just as powerful as the sgx544mp3 in the octocore. When oced the adreno 320 is actually more performant and since that is what really matters nowadays in gaming the S600 MIGHT be a little better. The S800 completely destroys both of them cpu and gpu wise. The S800 ate the ipad 4 so it completely obliterates the S600 and sgx544mp3 in the octocore
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY !
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
Andrei F.
@andreif7
@nerdtalker ab chip variants = +200 MHz CPU (obvious), +50MHz (450) GPU, +66MHz memory (600). Info taken from source code
https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/326992332404707328
bungadudu said:
At a high level, Samsung's Galaxy S 4 integrates Qualcomm's Snapdragon 600 SoC. From what Qualcomm told us about Snapdragon 600, we're dealing with four Krait 300 cores and an Adreno 320 GPU. The Krait 300 cores themselves are supposed to improve performance per clock over the original Krait CPU (Krait 200) through a handful of low level microarchitectural tweaks that we've gone through here. The Krait 300 design also allegedly improves the ability to run at higher frequencies without resorting to higher voltages. This isn't the first time we've talked about Snapdragon 600, but since then a few things have come to light.
For starters, Chipworks got their hands on a Snapdragon 600 SoC (from an HTC One) and delayered the SoC. In its investigation, Chipworks discovered that Snapdragon 600 had the exact same die area as the previous generation Snapdragon S4 Pro (APQ8064). Also, although you'd expect APQ8064T markings on the chip itself, the part carried the same APQ8064 label as previous S4 Pro designs.
Chipworks did note however that there were some subtle differences between a standard APQ8064 and the Snapdragon 600 SoC from the HTC One. The Snapdragon 600 from the One is labeled with an Avenger2 codename rather than Avenger, the latter was apparently present on prior APQ8064 designs. Chipworks also noticed differences in the topmost metal layer, although it's not clear whether or not they stopped there or found no differences in lower layers.
All of this points to a much more subtle set of physical differences between APQ8064 and the earliest Snapdragon 600s. Metal layer changes are often used to fix bugs in silicon without requiring a complete respin which can be costly and create additional delays. It's entirely possible that Krait 300 was actually just a bug fixed Krait 200, which would explain the identical die size and slight differences elsewhere.
That brings us to the Galaxy S 4. It's immediately apparent that something is different here because Samsung is shipping the Snapdragon 600 at a higher frequency than any other OEM. The Krait 300 cores in SGS4 can run at up to 1.9GHz vs. 1.7GHz for everyone else. Curiously enough, 1.9GHz is the max frequency that Qualcomm mentioned when it first announced Snapdragon 600.
Samsung is obviously a very large customer, so at first glance we assumed it could simply demand a better bin of Snapdragon 600 than its lower volume competitors. Looking a bit deeper however, we see that the Galaxy S 4 uses something different entirely.
Digging through the Galaxy S 4 kernel source we see references to an APQ8064AB part. As a recap, APQ8064 was the first quad-core Krait 200 SoC with no integrated modem, more commonly referred to as Snapdragon S4 Pro. APQ8064T was supposed to be its higher clocked/Krait 300 based successor that ended up with the marketing name Snapdragon 600. APQ8064AB however is, at this point, unique to the Galaxy S 4 but still carries the Snapdragon 600 marketing name.
If we had to guess, we might be looking at an actual respin of the APQ8064 silicon in APQ8064AB. Assuming Qualcomm isn't playing any funny games here, APQ8064AB may simply be a respin capable of hitting higher frequencies. We'll have to keep a close eye on this going forward, but it's clear to me that the Galaxy S 4 is shipping with something different than everyone else who has a Snapdragon 600 at this point.
Source - http://anandtech.com/show/6914/samsung-galaxy-s-4-review/3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OH, do you add the GPU difference? S4 use Adreno 320 with 450 MHz, which is different from another Snapdragon 600 phone
---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------
crzykiller said:
The octocore is just slightly more powerful. Though there is absolutely no difference in everyday use. One thing to note is that the adreno 320 is just as powerful as the sgx544mp3 in the octocore. When oced the adreno 320 is actually more performant and since that is what really matters nowadays in gaming the S600 MIGHT be a little better. The S800 completely destroys both of them cpu and gpu wise. The S800 ate the ipad 4 so it completely obliterates the S600 and sgx544mp3 in the octocore
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think of the Adreno 330 and 430? They will be in APQ8084 and Snapdragon 800, approximately available in the market in end 2013
jackchong0828 said:
OH, do you add the GPU difference? S4 use Adreno 320 with 450 MHz, which is different from another Snapdragon 600 phone
---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------
Do you think of the Adreno 330 and 430? They will be in APQ8084 and Snapdragon 800, approximately available in the market in end 2013
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was talking about the adreno 330. In certain benchmarks we see MSM8074 which is the name for the Snapdragon 800. Though supposedly there is also a Adreno 420 in the works too which is even more powerful than the adreno 330
95% certain that APQ8064T = APQ8064AB. Same chip, just confusing designators. Labeled T in marketing material, AB in kernel source.
Entropy512 said:
95% certain that APQ8064T = APQ8064AB. Same chip, just confusing designators. Labeled T in marketing material, AB in kernel source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so you mean they are physically the same but just overclocked?
jackchong0828 said:
so you mean they are physically the same but just overclocked?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not even overclocked. I believe they are exactly the same chip.
Hello, I'd like to know if there's any difference between snapdragon 600 and 800, without taking the GPU,
To be more clear, I want to know the difference between the CPU Speeds so, my question is.
Let's say I have a Snapdragon 800 running at 2.1 Ghz and I have a Snapdragon 600 Overclocked with a kernel running at 2.1 Ghz, are they gonna be the same? or Snapdragon 800 is gonna be faster even if it's clocked at the same speed as the 600?
You can't compare the snapdragon 800 @ 2.3 Ghz to a first gen i7 920 Intel running at 2.4 Ghz, of course the i7 is a lot faster.
An Snapdragon 800 running at 2.1 Ghz is as fast as a 600 running at 2.1 Ghz?
My english isn't the best and I hardly can explain what I want to know in my native language so, thanks for taking your time to read this thread and sorry about my broken English/Bad explaination.
Snapdragon 800 is not a CPU. Its a SoC. The CPU within the 800 is a 2.3 krait 400 and within the snapdragon 600 is a 1.9 krait 300
If both CPU run at 1.9, they will be the same speed. The architecture is the same only designed for lower output. That is the only difference.
The reason an i7 and krait 400 cannot be compared us because they are completely different.
Now if you could overclock a krait 300 to match 2.3 on krait 400, theoretically its same speeds but of course overheating and stability will probably mean the real world performance will not be as good
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
Hi,
Both clocked at 2.26 Ghz (so with a S600 overclocked) the S800 will always be faster, or both at 2.1 Ghz if you want... In short and for raw performance. This is not only the CPU frequency that is important...
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/800
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/600
You can search also for Krait 300/400 for the difference, etc...
also don't forget that the GPU is not the same, the S800 GPU (Adreno 330) is a lot better than the S600 (Adreno 320)
rootSU said:
Snapdragon 800 is not a CPU. Its a SoC. The CPU within the 800 is a 2.3 krait 400 and within the snapdragon 600 is a 1.9 krait 300
If both CPU run at 1.9, they will be the same speed. The architecture is the same only designed for lower output. That is the only difference.
The reason an i7 and krait 400 cannot be compared us because they are completely different.
Now if you could overclock a krait 300 to match 2.3 on krait 400, theoretically its same speeds but of course overheating and stability will probably mean the real world performance will not be as good
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I just wanted to know if the S800 is faster only because it's clocked higher or there's more (besides the GPU)
viking37 said:
Hi,
Both clocked at 2.26 Ghz (so with a S600 overclocked) the S800 will always be faster, or both at 2.1 Ghz if you want... In short and for raw performance. This is not only the CPU frequency that is important...
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/800
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/600
You can search also for Krait 300/400 for the difference, etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I looked at s600/s800 at qualcomm's website but I found they have the same CPU, just the s800 clocked higher, I thought s800 would be faster than the S600 if both run at the same clock due to better architecture
DarknessWarrior said:
also don't forget that the GPU is not the same, the S800 GPU (Adreno 330) is a lot better than the S600 (Adreno 320)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ye, I know the GPU on the S800 is better but I was curious about the CPU
Sooooooo if both run at the same clock speed they're the same? (ignoring the heat)
So, the S800 is faster because it can be clocked higher due to krait400, so it only is faster than S600 at clock speed (ignoring the GPU)
Nice to know, I thought there were more differences besides the clock that made the S800 faster than S600 in CPU wise.
Thanks for the replies
PunkOz said:
I looked at s600/s800 at qualcomm's website but I found they have the same CPU, just the s800 clocked higher, I thought s800 would be faster than the S600 if both run at the same clock due to better architecture
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Re,
Nope they are not exactly the same, it's not only an history of CPU freq, look closely
PunkOz said:
Yeah, I just wanted to know if the S800 is faster only because it's clocked higher or there's more (besides the GPU)
I looked at s600/s800 at qualcomm's website but I found they have the same CPU, just the s800 clocked higher, I thought s800 would be faster than the S600 if both run at the same clock due to better architecture
Ye, I know the GPU on the S800 is better but I was curious about the CPU
Sooooooo if both run at the same clock speed they're the same? (ignoring the heat)
So, the S800 is faster because it can be clocked higher due to krait400, so it only is faster than S600 at clock speed (ignoring the GPU)
Nice to know, I thought there were more differences besides the clock that made the S800 faster than S600 in CPU wise.
Thanks for the replies
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well not just heat. The Krait 300 CPU is designed to be run at 1.9 whereas the krait 400 is designed to be run at 2.3. Running both at 2.3, they obviously run the same amount of cycles, but the quality of the materials / construction and the design will mean that the krait 300 will not be able to maintain that amount of cycles for long, may drop some cycles etc. Theoretically a cycle is a cycle, in practice getting all those cycles to work properly is different
Plus the difference about memory, L2 cache, etc... For all the differences Google should be your friend, after it's too technical
viking37 said:
Plus the difference about memory, L2 cache, etc... For all the differences Google should be your friend, after it's too technical
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually googled and the CPU is about the same, same L2 cache accordign to Qualcomm's website, 28 nm, just the S800 is clocked higher, I always Google before making a thread but I couldn't find an answer to my question or maybe I didn't ask Google properly.
I know the S800 supports USB 3.0, has a faster charging etc etc, I just wanted to know if it would be running as fast as a S600 if they have the same clock speed.
in conclussion, S800 is faster because it runs cooler than S600 so it lets the S800 reach a higher frequency + better materials used on S800 architecture etc makes it run cooler and cooler means more stable under high load + reaching higher clock.
Thanks for the help guys correct me If I'm wrong but I think I got this
Hi,
Qualcomm will not reveal all on their site
The L2 cache is faster than the S600, memory access (Memory controller?) too it's on a bunch of sites... 28mm, right, but one is LP and the other is HPm...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6568/qualcomm-krait-400-krait-300-snapdragon-800
The thing we need is the internal hardware stuff, source and documentation from Qualcomm, for sure there is another things . Maybe some kernel devs could have good information too?
Maybe if you did not find anything more is that there is nothing else to find...
But if you got it, it's fine and I think that all is said :good:
Hey guys I just currently pre-ordered the Pixel and am a little worried about the benchmarks that have been released. Do you guys think these are accurate? On some of the articles I have read the clock speeds they are claiming it is running are the speeds of the 820 not the 821. I mean the 6p scored higher on benchmarks than the pixel. How can these be right with the newest processor?
Look at the hands on videos. You won't be worried about performance after that. Looks like Google has done a lot of optimization. Benchmarks don't tell the whole story.
Well, seeing as the 821 is to an 820 the same as an 801 is to an 800... i.e., its the same damned chip, not really sure why you would expect there to be a dramatic performance change?
The 821 shows a peak cpu frequency spec a bit higher than 820, but this doesn't mean that everyone who uses it is obligated to use the highest frequency.
So here is a little bit of information about CPU manufacturing;
Every CPU core is a little bit different. Some of them are stable at lower voltages and higher frequencies than others. The CPU specification indicates a MINIMUM frequency that it MUST be stable at while operating within the designed power envelope. In other words, another CPU may be able to operate at the higher frequency, but it won't do so within the designed power envelope -- it will require OVER VOLTING.
The CPUs are separated according to their levels of stability. Call that "binning". One of these CPUs that bins poorly might be called a Snapdragon 820, and one that bins well will be called a Snapdragon 821. Within each model name, there are further levels of distinction that are used to set the baseline voltages being applied, in order to minimize the voltage that they are fed, such that you can reduce the power consumption as much as possible.
So you can think of an underclocked Snapdragon 821 as a SUPER DUPER AWESOME binned Snapdragon 820, operating at a lower voltage, and therefore consuming less power.
Don't worry about benchmarks! What it matters is the SoC you have, how well disipated is the SoC, and most important, how the software is done (kernel, drivers, android, binaries, etc).
There could be many devices with same SoC and better scores, but at the end, they lag more etc.
For instance, my previous Z5 Compact (with Sony Android, which is similar to AOSP) and a much better SoC than my current N5X, imo lags more than my current Nexus 5X with a worse SoC.
There's no way you can choose a device based on the benchmark, you must try both devices by yourself (ideally with your apps) and see the difference.
Giving another example...A Nexus 5 2013, is extremely fast in KK (with ART) and even in MM (but not in Lollipop).
However, it still throttles much more than a 5X because of the frequency, nm, and many other things.
doitright said:
Well, seeing as the 821 is to an 820 the same as an 801 is to an 800... i.e., its the same damned chip, not really sure why you would expect there to be a dramatic performance change?
The CPUs are separated according to their levels of stability. Call that "binning". One of these CPUs that bins poorly might be called a Snapdragon 820, and one that bins well will be called a Snapdragon 821. Within each model name, there are further levels of distinction that are used to set the baseline voltages being applied, in order to minimize the voltage that they are fed, such that you can reduce the power consumption as much as possible.
So you can think of an underclocked Snapdragon 821 as a SUPER DUPER AWESOME binned Snapdragon 820, operating at a lower voltage, and therefore consuming less power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There actually are some differences in the 821 vs the 820. It's not the same chip exactly. A pretty great breakdown is here: https://www.gizmotimes.com/comparison/snapdragon-821-vs-snapdragon-820/16403
But essentially, slightly better power savings, improved camera performance, and a VR SDK.
Thanks for all the replies guys. I was just confused as to why a chip the snapdragon says should have a 10% increase in performance over the 820 is benchmarking lower than most 820's.
Good info, thanks guys!
We know nothing yet, time will tell obviously. The videos in the early previews look great, but we'll see under heavy load how these perform.
jbrooks58 said:
Hey guys I just currently pre-ordered the Pixel and am a little worried about the benchmarks that have been released. Do you guys think these are accurate? On some of the articles I have read the clock speeds they are claiming it is running are the speeds of the 820 not the 821. I mean the 6p scored higher on benchmarks than the pixel. How can these be right with the newest processor?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like it if you could actually find something that claims that the 6p is anywhere near pixel in performance benchmarks. Reality is that it is more than 2x faster across the board.
As far as comparing it with 820, there are two things you can accomplish with the "1" -- more speed, or less power. They seem to be opting for the latter.
All the benchmarks I could find show it against either apple, or samsuck. Samsuck is well known for building TO the benchmarks (sometimes even *cheating*), which causes their scores to be unnaturally high, and comparing against apple is just stupid, since there is no baseline between them due to architectural differences and a complete lack of a common software stack. In other words, in a comparison between pixel and anything made by apple, you could have a smaller number, despite *actually* being considerably higher. The number doesn't equate across platforms.
---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------
jbrooks58 said:
Thanks for all the replies guys. I was just confused as to why a chip the snapdragon says should have a 10% increase in performance over the 820 is benchmarking lower than most 820's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That 10% is an interesting figure.
The SD820 has clock rates of 2.15 GHz on 2 cores, and 1.59 GHz on the other 2 cores.
Multiply by 1.1 (add 10%) and you get 2.365 and 1.749 GHz.
The SD821 has clock rates of 2.34 GHz on 2 cores and 2.19 GHz on the other 2 cores.
On those first two cores, that is marginally more the 10% higher clock rate. On the other 2 cores, it is considerably more than 10%. Note that a system's performance does NOT scale linearly with CPU frequency.
The other thing to note is that the pixel specs show it operating at 2x2.15+2x1.6 GHz, just like the SD820.
So what we can read from that, is that the pixel's CPUs are **underclocked**. That will allow it to use less battery power, and run cooler, while still running *really really fast*. If you want more, unlock and clock it up to 821 spec, I think you will find that this phone is an "overclocker's" dream, even if it isn't really overclocking.
That 10% figure comes directly from Qualcomm's publications on performance for the 821 vs 820.
craig0r said:
There actually are some differences in the 821 vs the 820. It's not the same chip exactly. A pretty great breakdown is here: https://www.gizmotimes.com/comparison/snapdragon-821-vs-snapdragon-820/16403
But essentially, slightly better power savings, improved camera performance, and a VR SDK.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good read, thanks.