Related
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.
Why did they go with adreno gpu when nexus 6 that came out 1 year ago has adreno 420 already
Will you really be able to tell the diference? I doubt it. Its just a number game really
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
They had no choice. They could choose the 805, the 808, or the 810. If they chose the 805, everyone would complain that it's a processor from 2014. If they chose the 810, everyone would complain that it will overheat and get crappy battery life. The 808 is the best choice for the least number of complaints. Yeah, it has a slightly slower GPU than the 805, but the CPU is much faster than the 805, and even faster than the 810 in demanding situations because the 810 will completely turn off its BIG cores if it gets too warm, whereas the 808 doesn't get hot enough that it needs to turn off the BIG cores and switch to little.
Geordie Affy said:
Will you really be able to tell the diference? I doubt it. Its just a number game really
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool story. If I use that logic my old lg g2 should be enough.
Sent from my LG-D800
gtg465x said:
They had no choice. They could choose the 805, the 808, or the 810. If they chose the 805, everyone would complain that it's a processor from 2014. If they chose the 810, everyone would complain that it will overheat and get crappy battery life. The 808 is the best choice for the least number of complaints. Yeah, it has a slightly slower GPU than the 805, but the CPU is much faster than the 805, and even faster than the 810 in demanding situations because the 810 will completely turn off its BIG cores if it gets too warm, whereas the 808 doesn't get hot enough that it needs to turn off the BIG cores and switch to little.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but it sucks that the whole android ecosystem has to depend on qualcomm. Imagine if next year they screw up again... It seems like samsung cpu rock this year and apple too..
Sent from my LG-D800
ambervals6 said:
Cool story. If I use that logic my old lg g2 should be enough.
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point exactly lol. Whatever phone you buy it will be an upgrade in some way ... all this numbers game is becoming a tad OTT.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
ambervals6 said:
Yeah but it sucks that the whole android ecosystem has to depend on qualcomm. Imagine if next year they screw up again... It seems like samsung cpu rock this year and apple too..
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, it does suck. And it is a shame that Qualcomm could have made a great SOC instead of two meh ones. If they were smart, they would have put the Adreno 430 GPU in the 808 and marketed it as their flagship phone SOC, and marketed the 810 as a tablet only SOC, because tablets can better dissipate the heat. But none of that is Motorola's fault. I think Motorola chose wisely between the not so great choices they had.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Forums Pro.
gtg465x said:
Yep, it does suck. And it is a shame that Qualcomm could have made a great SOC instead of two meh ones. If they were smart, they would have put the Adreno 430 GPU in the 808 and marketed it as their flagship phone SOC, and marketed the 810 as a tablet only SOC, because tablets can better dissipate the heat. But none of that is Motorola's fault. I think Motorola chose wisely between the not so great choices they had.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Forums Pro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as long as there is no serious competition out there, qualcomm will continue not to give a single **** and unfortunately upgrades will come in lame increments.
Sent from my LG-D800
I think it's funny how all the new 810 soc have the cores down clocked to 1.8ghz.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
ambervals6 said:
Well as long as there is no serious competition out there, qualcomm will continue not to give a single **** and unfortunately upgrades will come in lame increments.
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Competition is coming. Qualcomm should be worried. http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/0...qualcomm-begun-a-long-slow-fall-from-the-top/
gtg465x said:
They had no choice. They could choose the 805, the 808, or the 810. If they chose the 805, everyone would complain that it's a processor from 2014. If they chose the 810, everyone would complain that it will overheat and get crappy battery life. The 808 is the best choice for the least number of complaints. Yeah, it has a slightly slower GPU than the 805, but the CPU is much faster than the 805, and even faster than the 810 in demanding situations because the 810 will completely turn off its BIG cores if it gets too warm, whereas the 808 doesn't get hot enough that it needs to turn off the BIG cores and switch to little.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this isn't the full story + its a little misleading. here are the technical details:
the 418 is as good, if not better than the 420 for the following reasons:
1. The 418 has the same "system specs" as the 420, minus the down-throttling.
2. The 418 was fabbed on smaller architecture (20nm) vs. the 420 (28nm). This means greater power savings and less heat.
3. The 418/420 is to the 430 like the NVIDIA 960 is to the 980 GTX, but you wont get the 430 unless you get the 810.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno#Variants
640k said:
this isn't the full story + its a little misleading. here are the technical details:
the 418 is as good, if not better than the 420 for the following reasons:
1. The 418 has the same "system specs" as the 420, minus the down-throttling.
2. The 418 was fabbed on smaller architecture (20nm) vs. the 420 (28nm). This means greater power savings and less heat.
3. The 418/420 is to the 430 like the NVIDIA 960 is to the 980 GTX, but you wont get the 430 unless you get the 810.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno#Variants
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure I trust that Wikipedia article. There are no references cited for the 418 information. Looking at Anandtech, the Adreno 418 is slower in EVERY graphics benchmark than the Adreno 420, even though it has the advantage of being paired with a faster CPU.
Here's a quote from Anandtech: "In GFXBench, we can see that the Adreno 418 GPU is a definite step up from the Adreno 330 in the Snapdragon 801, but not quite at the level of the Snapdragon 805's Adreno 420."
Look at the benchmarks for yourself here. The Nexus 6 and Note 4 (SD 805 / Adreno 420) both beat the LG G4 (SD 808 / Adreno 418) in every single graphics and gaming test performed. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9379/the-lg-g4-review/7
So I think it's safe to say the 420 is a little better than the 418. I don't think they would have named it the 418 if it was just a die shrunk 420. Usually a die shrink allows for faster clock speeds, and if a die shrink was the only difference, you would expect the 418 to match the performance of the 420, or even surpass it because the clock speed could go higher. That isn't the case, so I think there are some architectural differences as well that aren't shown in the Wiki article. I think Qualcomm naming it the 418 instead of the 422 even though it's newer is a pretty good indication that Qualcomm knows it isn't as good as the 420.
gtg465x said:
I'm not sure I trust that Wikipedia article. There are no references cited for the 418 information. Looking at Anandtech, the Adreno 418 is slower in EVERY graphics benchmark than the Adreno 420, even though it has the advantage of being paired with a faster CPU.
Here's a quote from Anandtech: "In GFXBench, we can see that the Adreno 418 GPU is a definite step up from the Adreno 330 in the Snapdragon 801, but not quite at the level of the Snapdragon 805's Adreno 420."
Look at the benchmarks for yourself here. The Nexus 6 and Note 4 (SD 805 / Adreno 420) both beat the LG G4 (SD 808 / Adreno 418) in every single graphics and gaming test performed. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9379/the-lg-g4-review/7
So I think it's safe to say the 420 is a little better than the 418. I don't think they would have named it the 418 if it was just a die shrunk 420. Usually a die shrink allows for faster clock speeds, and if a die shrink was the only difference, you would expect the 418 to match the performance of the 420, or even surpass it because the clock speed could go higher. That isn't the case, so I think there are some architectural differences as well that aren't shown in the Wiki article. I think Qualcomm naming it the 418 instead of the 422 even though it's newer is a pretty good indication that Qualcomm knows it isn't as good as the 420.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did anyone else notice how high the 2014 moto x was in those benchmarks. Motorola must really optimize the kernel.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Positive spin time!
The 808's gpu handles games fine and consumes less power than the 7420's gpu (S6 & Note 5). I would rather have a GPU that handles games as is, rather than drains more battery and prefer a more power economical GPU for a portable device. There is a reason you see a lot of complaints about the S6 battery life and others do not. Most correlates to those that use apps that are GPU heavy.
rushless said:
Positive spin time!
The 808's gpu handles games fine and consumes less power than the 7420's gpu (S6 & Note 5). I would rather have a GPU that handles games as is, rather than drains more battery and prefer a more power economical GPU for a portable device. There is a reason you see a lot of complaints about the S6 battery life and others do not. Most correlates to those that use apps that are GPU heavy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lmao this guy
Sent from my A0001
What was comedic besides my awareness it is spin? True that games perform fine on the 808 and the 7420 gpu consumes more power. As far as bigger fancier games that need even more power, not very practical on a portable device so kind of moot with a small battery.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
If it's a concern you should wait for the nexus to drop with its rumored snapdragon 820 and next gen adreno.
Also for the issue of this year's qcom products sucking, remember that market pressure forced them to release chips with generic ARM cores because their in-house 64 bit designs weren't ready. The 820 ditches the octocore big.LITTLE architecture for a quad core qcom design. Lots to look forward to.
And I think the 808 is probably the best chip they could have picked for the X this year.
ambervals6 said:
Cool story. If I use that logic my old lg g2 should be enough.
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is, but you're all too spoiled to make it out
SchmidtA99 said:
I think it's funny how all the new 810 soc have the cores down clocked to 1.8ghz.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think 810 is way better than 808. Adreno 430 vs 418. The 430 is WAY BETTER. And if the 810 gets too hot, you can always turn off 2 high performance cores. But you can never have an adreno 430 in the 808
gtg465x said:
I'm not sure I trust that Wikipedia article. There are no references cited for the 418 information. Looking at Anandtech, the Adreno 418 is slower in EVERY graphics benchmark than the Adreno 420, even though it has the advantage of being paired with a faster CPU.
Here's a quote from Anandtech: "In GFXBench, we can see that the Adreno 418 GPU is a definite step up from the Adreno 330 in the Snapdragon 801, but not quite at the level of the Snapdragon 805's Adreno 420."
Look at the benchmarks for yourself here. The Nexus 6 and Note 4 (SD 805 / Adreno 420) both beat the LG G4 (SD 808 / Adreno 418) in every single graphics and gaming test performed. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9379/the-lg-g4-review/7
So I think it's safe to say the 420 is a little better than the 418. I don't think they would have named it the 418 if it was just a die shrunk 420. Usually a die shrink allows for faster clock speeds, and if a die shrink was the only difference, you would expect the 418 to match the performance of the 420, or even surpass it because the clock speed could go higher. That isn't the case, so I think there are some architectural differences as well that aren't shown in the Wiki article. I think Qualcomm naming it the 418 instead of the 422 even though it's newer is a pretty good indication that Qualcomm knows it isn't as good as the 420.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's slower because Qualcomm halved the memory bus from 128-bit to 64-bit. The S810/A430 has the same bandwidth as the S805 because they doubled the speed of the RAM. So, 128-bit LPDDR3-800 (1600MHz effective) is equal to LPDDR4-1600 (3200MHz effective): 25.6 GB/s
Unfortunately, Qualcomm limited the S808 to LPDDR3-933 (1866MHz effective): 14.9 GB/s
The 418 and 420 are the same GPU, architecturally. The 418 could probably be slightly faster in non-bandwidth limited scenarios (low resolution 3D).
Memory bandwidth dropped from 25.6 GB/s to 14.9 GB/s. That's nearly a 25% loss and about equal to the real world performance losses. Hence, it's a 418.
Hi
I saw many site stating it running on 855+ but when i run cpu-z it show 855 and SM-8150
is there a variant of Z Flip running 855 instead of 855+?
Strange..
Lazy copied from elsewhere: Snapdragon 855 Plus is just the overclocked version of 855. Model number is exactly the same. If it's showing cpu at 2.96GHz it's the Plus, if it's 2.84GHz it's the regular variant. That's the only difference.
Device info HW+ app is showing that soc of my POCO X3 NFC 6/128 is 730
Wasn't it 732G?
Anyone please check your snapdragon version with this app
Please.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.andr7e.deviceinfohw
irfanilyas991 said:
Anyone please check your snapdragon version with this app
Please.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.andr7e.deviceinfohw
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm strange iv just read too that it was 732 but mine says 730 too
May be the app is not updated and doesn't have the 732G codes. 732G is rather new.
Moreover this phone is giving the benchmark score of 730 which is 27 lac something
732G gives 31 lac+ score.
Someone please confirm the SoC used in this phone.
I checked using CPU-Z it shows SDMMAGPIE which is actually the codename for Snapdragon 730. On AIDA-64 it also shows Snapdragon 730 (SM7150). It's weird, but the GPU is correct, Adreno 618.
It should be confirmed from official support
732 it almost same as 730 but 732 its 2.3 ghz so
it shchold be 732 in poco
730g and 732g are practically the same soc, and the 732 is brand new, the majority of the apps can't recognise it simply because they are not updated to recognise it.
I mailed the developer of this app, he uploaded the beta version. Now its showing 732G
730G and 732G are variants of the 730 SOC.
The only difference is the clock frequency - 2.200 MHz at the 730G and 2.300 MHz at the 732G.
Here
(with the ugliest back ever seen... Xiaomi, what did you smoke, this year ??? )
Post cleaned.
Thread cleaned.
Please show respect to each other. If there is a post that breaks our rules, then report it and don't respond to it. If a post doesn't break the rules, you may use the forum's ability to add a user to your ignore list.
Thank you.
If the values from Nanoreview are correct, then that would indeed be quite a downgrade in terms of the CPU/GPU. The only plus points of the device would probably be the OLED display and the 5G support.
Snapdragon 860 vs Snapdragon 695: tests and benchmarks
We put Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 against Snapdragon 695 to find out which SoC is better. See performance comparison in benchmarks and games.
nanoreview.net
thorin0815 said:
If the values from Nanoreview are correct, then that would indeed be quite a downgrade in terms of the CPU/GPU. The only plus points of the device would probably be the OLED display and the 5G support.
Snapdragon 860 vs Snapdragon 695: tests and benchmarks
We put Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 against Snapdragon 695 to find out which SoC is better. See performance comparison in benchmarks and games.
nanoreview.net
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
from adreno 640 to 619 ... this is definitely a mess in downgrade never seen before !
Good IPS LCDs (like the one from POCO X3 & Pro) are still a good value over the new oled panels with their higher nits (= battery killer)
more explanation = here
I mean yeah they could have done something better, but at least they didn't go for a mediatek. SD 870, dimenisty 1100, 1200 have already been used, so yeah I'm not sure what the perfect Soc could have been.
AmmarHaseeb said:
I mean yeah they could have done something better, but at least they didn't go for a mediatek. SD 870, dimenisty 1100, 1200 have already been used, so yeah I'm not sure what the perfect Soc could have been.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(the storage is only ufs 2.2)
i think this time the name should be : POCO X4 Lite
Yes, it seem like a huge downgrade and seeing how it stat 5g, it might be that the 5g component cost a lot.
I just notice that the spec is similar to redmi note 11 pro 5G......
so is just a rebrand of it...
@[email protected]
Lol call it the x4 and call it a day
AmmarHaseeb said:
Lol call it the x4 and call it a day
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, even the X4 NFC has better CPU performance with a MTK CPU.
Snapdragon 695 vs Dimensity 920: tests and benchmarks
We put Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 against MediaTek Dimensity 920 to find out which SoC is better. See performance comparison in benchmarks and games.
nanoreview.net
Uhmm I better take Panadol before it gets worse