or better yet, some high some mid and some very low core speed to keep power use minimal as possible
would make too much sense apparently. the phone makers always seem to want keep battery size a year or 2 back in capacity, least that can be done is ensure the compute power is harnessed IMO
this way things can truly sit in background barely use any power (example 500-800Mhz instead of in the Ghz range) and when need the actual performance a few ms later the fast cores come alive to burst the workload up.
seeing as the current slew of phones are dime a dozen (not) they all (the makers) should be just as concerned about saving them from going to trash bin as they are about plopping new ones on the shelf with stupidly small batteries attached to high spec components (that do not sip power)
Flagship / Luxury (>$500, 8GB RAM, 256GB NAND, +1440p Screen**) QSD 835, 845, 855, 865 **specs and prices are just a rough guide, duh!
As was said, it's about Marketing and Pricing. Qualcomm has been a big loser in the chipset marketshare from 2018-2019, mainly, as other vendors have decided to compete harder, such as, Samsung Exynos, HiSilicon Kirin, MediaTek.
And while Qualcomm can retake that marketshare back easily, it will come at reduced profit-margins, and affects their future plans. Right now, they're in the "defensive phase" which means they will imitate Intel and try to obfuscate their products as much as possible. This is to confuse the market, companies, and consumers... in order to maintain the status-quo that they are still "the best". Usually, the leading competitor or ethical companies will do the opposite and try to make their offerings as simple as possible, see AMD. It is no secret that there are product segments and stacks in the industry. Despite Qualcomm's best efforts, usually the knowledgeable enthusiasts such as myself and Anandtech can tread through the muddy waters and figure out where each chipset is placed, as shown above.
If you disagree, just see the history of the chipsets:
True, that we have seen those. But those are moreso "upper midrange" phones with the "luxury" processors. We used to call that segment the "flagship killer". They don't compare against true flagship phones.
I also wanted to post a link to a previous comment I made. It's basically a list of all Android ARM SoC's between 2011 and 2019, and it is listed from worst to best based on their properties (single-core performance, multi-thread performance, graphics performance, and battery life properties). I know there's a couple few extra Snapdragon chipsets that were released afterwards, the latest Apple chipset, two Kirin chipsets, and a handful of new Exynos chipsets that are missing from the list. But overall, it's a pretty decent list in terms of accuracy and amount of chipsets, so here it is: https://www.gsmarena.com/newscomm-38594p5.php
I think pricing is more important that specifications. As long as Qualcomm can hit the right price bracket with an eight core SoC (and power consumption target), then why not sell one for low end phones?
That's the answer - they wouldn't be equal. Price would be higher and power consumption would be higher, both of which are killers for low-end devices.
The first concern in low-end SoCs is cost, which used to just mean area but now means a balance of area and manufacturing node (sub-14nm nodes are becoming significantly more expensive for a given area). Given those constraints, keeping the SoC on as large a node as possible while still keeping its size as small as possible results in the lowest cost.
Added to that, you'll always want *some* small cores for power savings - a 4-core A7x design would perform better than 8-core A5x but would sap more power (and probably still be larger in terms of die area). You could go for a balance, but every large core you add increases die size and design complexity more than a small core would, increasing costs.
The imperfect solution is to add more of the small cores for a big number on the spec sheet, lower power usage, lowest possible cost and serviceable performance in tasks like web browsing that actually benefit from all of those cores.
Wait a moment... Is Snapdragon 460 and 662 almost identical spec vise? Why release both is there is almost no difference?
Also, I'd love more clear naming pattern from Qualcomm. Right now without checking spec it's almost impossible to guess which SoC is better. For example SD660 has better CPU and modem than 662, while later has better GPU, ISP, DSP. I mean, the check?
Looks like its a binning difference. The 460 runs slower on the CPU side. Good way to keep from having to throw away chips that don't bin high enough for the 662.
That and if sells are flat for the 662 they can sell as 460s.
What the article doesn't mention is that the 460, 662 and 720G are the first SoCs of the 4, 6 and 7 series to support Bluetooth 5.1 and the 460 and 662 are the first SoCs of the 4 and 6 series to be "802.11ax-ready".
The 662 is bizarre - the model number doesn't make any sense given its capabilities; in fact it looks a lot like a higher bin of the 460. That (in theory) makes the 460 great value for money in any devices it might show up in (if any), and the 662... less so. They keep doing this up-selling of 400 series chips into their 600 series and it's bewildering.
Qualcomm really need to rationalise their lineup. They could easily reduce to 3 SoC series (800, 600, 400) and release one update to each per generation. As it is, whenever I see a device with a 600-series SoC I have to look up the specs to figure out whether it's one of the "good" ones.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
26 Comments
Back to Article
fred666 - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Is such a high core count a good idea for these mid/low range SoC?Wouldn't it be better to have only 2-4 good cores instead?
Dragonstongue - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
or better yet, some high some mid and some very low core speedto keep power use minimal as possible
would make too much sense apparently. the phone makers always seem to want keep battery size a year or 2 back in capacity, least that can be done is ensure the compute power is harnessed IMO
this way things can truly sit in background barely use any power (example 500-800Mhz instead of in the Ghz range) and when need the actual performance a few ms later the fast cores come alive to burst the workload up.
seeing as the current slew of phones are dime a dozen (not) they all (the makers) should be just as concerned about saving them from going to trash bin as they are about plopping new ones on the shelf with stupidly small batteries attached to high spec components (that do not sip power)
StevoLincolnite - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Advertising.4 cores looks better than 2 cores on the box.
Kangal - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
In terms of product segments, it goes like this (from worst to best):Entry Level (<$100, 1GB RAM, 16GB NAND, 480p Screen**)
Sorry, not going to bother listing any!
Low-end (~$100, 2GB RAM, 32GB NAND, 720p Screen**)
QSD 439, 450, 625, 626, 630
Midrange (~$200, 4GB RAM, 64GB NAND, 1080p Screen**)
QSD 632, 636, 460, 662, 665, 670, 660
High-end (~$300, 6GB RAM, 128GB NAND, +1080p Screen**)
QSD 675, 710, 712, 730, 720, 765
Flagship / Luxury (>$500, 8GB RAM, 256GB NAND, +1440p Screen**)
QSD 835, 845, 855, 865
**specs and prices are just a rough guide, duh!
As was said, it's about Marketing and Pricing.
Qualcomm has been a big loser in the chipset marketshare from 2018-2019, mainly, as other vendors have decided to compete harder, such as, Samsung Exynos, HiSilicon Kirin, MediaTek.
And while Qualcomm can retake that marketshare back easily, it will come at reduced profit-margins, and affects their future plans. Right now, they're in the "defensive phase" which means they will imitate Intel and try to obfuscate their products as much as possible. This is to confuse the market, companies, and consumers... in order to maintain the status-quo that they are still "the best". Usually, the leading competitor or ethical companies will do the opposite and try to make their offerings as simple as possible, see AMD. It is no secret that there are product segments and stacks in the industry. Despite Qualcomm's best efforts, usually the knowledgeable enthusiasts such as myself and Anandtech can tread through the muddy waters and figure out where each chipset is placed, as shown above.
If you disagree, just see the history of the chipsets:
OLDEST: QSD 617, QSD 650, QSD 653, QSD 835
OLDER: QSD 625, QSD 636, QSD 712, QSD 845
NEWER: QSD 630, QSD 665, QSD 730, QSD 855
COMING: QSD 460, QSD 670, QSD 765, QSD 865
flyingpants265 - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
SD845 and SD855 phones are available for $300/$400. Obviously we can safely ignore the $900+ optionsKangal - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
True, that we have seen those.But those are moreso "upper midrange" phones with the "luxury" processors. We used to call that segment the "flagship killer". They don't compare against true flagship phones.
I also wanted to post a link to a previous comment I made. It's basically a list of all Android ARM SoC's between 2011 and 2019, and it is listed from worst to best based on their properties (single-core performance, multi-thread performance, graphics performance, and battery life properties). I know there's a couple few extra Snapdragon chipsets that were released afterwards, the latest Apple chipset, two Kirin chipsets, and a handful of new Exynos chipsets that are missing from the list. But overall, it's a pretty decent list in terms of accuracy and amount of chipsets, so here it is:
https://www.gsmarena.com/newscomm-38594p5.php
eek2121 - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
Qualcomm basically owns the market in the US. The only other major player is Apple.PeachNCream - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
I think pricing is more important that specifications. As long as Qualcomm can hit the right price bracket with an eight core SoC (and power consumption target), then why not sell one for low end phones?fred666 - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
It's always a matter of compromise. If they put 4 cores instead of 8, each core could be faster (price and power consumption being equal).Spunjji - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
That's the answer - they wouldn't be equal. Price would be higher and power consumption would be higher, both of which are killers for low-end devices.Spunjji - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
The first concern in low-end SoCs is cost, which used to just mean area but now means a balance of area and manufacturing node (sub-14nm nodes are becoming significantly more expensive for a given area). Given those constraints, keeping the SoC on as large a node as possible while still keeping its size as small as possible results in the lowest cost.Added to that, you'll always want *some* small cores for power savings - a 4-core A7x design would perform better than 8-core A5x but would sap more power (and probably still be larger in terms of die area). You could go for a balance, but every large core you add increases die size and design complexity more than a small core would, increasing costs.
The imperfect solution is to add more of the small cores for a big number on the spec sheet, lower power usage, lowest possible cost and serviceable performance in tasks like web browsing that actually benefit from all of those cores.
quadrivial - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Should the 720G cores be 475 instead of 465?levizx - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
They are named 465 for a reason, the frequency is higher so more likely they've cut down L2/L3$.Tabalan - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Wait a moment... Is Snapdragon 460 and 662 almost identical spec vise? Why release both is there is almost no difference?Also, I'd love more clear naming pattern from Qualcomm. Right now without checking spec it's almost impossible to guess which SoC is better. For example SD660 has better CPU and modem than 662, while later has better GPU, ISP, DSP. I mean, the check?
Marlin1975 - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Looks like its a binning difference. The 460 runs slower on the CPU side. Good way to keep from having to throw away chips that don't bin high enough for the 662.That and if sells are flat for the 662 they can sell as 460s.
eek2121 - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
Identical spec wise? They are completely different! Look at the charts again.GC2:CS - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Step it up Qualcomm. We know you can take your confusing naming and configurations up a notch this year.Btw. Who would want a pure cortex A53 chipset anyway at anytime ?
euskalzabe - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
Literally the vast majority of consumers who know nothing other than "oh look, it has (insert number) cores, that's good right?Ro_Ja - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
They got the clock speed on the 450 wrong, its only 1.8ghzSolo450 - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
What the article doesn't mention is that the 460, 662 and 720G are the first SoCs of the 4, 6 and 7 series to support Bluetooth 5.1 and the 460 and 662 are the first SoCs of the 4 and 6 series to be "802.11ax-ready".Lolimaster - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
The biggest offender in batter drain is not the soc but the screeneek2121 - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
Qualcomm is in desperate need of some competition.Spunjji - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
The 662 is bizarre - the model number doesn't make any sense given its capabilities; in fact it looks a lot like a higher bin of the 460. That (in theory) makes the 460 great value for money in any devices it might show up in (if any), and the 662... less so. They keep doing this up-selling of 400 series chips into their 600 series and it's bewildering.Qualcomm really need to rationalise their lineup. They could easily reduce to 3 SoC series (800, 600, 400) and release one update to each per generation. As it is, whenever I see a device with a 600-series SoC I have to look up the specs to figure out whether it's one of the "good" ones.
peevee - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
Funny, 460 is almost like 835 used to be. 4 A73s... pretty cool for a low end. What, ARM has dropped the cost of A73 licenses so much?