backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by ssnova703.. on Mar 6 at 11:00 PM

Snapdragon 800 will air this summer, boost CPU speeds and the on-die GPU

NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) in January made the bold claim that its Tegra 4 system-on-a-chip (SoC) was "the world's fastest mobile processor".  At the 2013 Mobile World Congress, the company was busy preaching that claim and praising the chips potential for smartphones/tablets.  The 28 nm Tegra 4 packs four cores running at up to 1.9 GHz, plus a low-power companion core, and is paired with 72 GPU processing units.

Qualcomm, Inc. (QCOM) is unphased, though, by NVIDIA's bold rhetoric.  In an interview with The Verge, Qualcomm's Senior VP of Product Management, Raj Talluri, said that the Snapdragon 800 should "easily" beat Tegra 4 in most benchmarks.  He's also confident that despite the die-shrink Tegra will still be more power hungry than Snapdragon, due to its lack of an on-die LTE modem.  He adds that his company is "more focused on shipping products" than refuting rivals' braggadocio.

So far about 50 upcoming products have been announced or leaked that feature the Snapdragon 800, which begins sampling next quarter.  The chip packs a quad-core processor clocked at up to 2.3 GHz, on-die LTE, and a fresh GPU, the Adreno 330.

Qualcomm is confident that the Snapdragon 800 willl still be more than enough to hold off the Tegra 4i (Grey), the refined version of Tegra 4 that's slated to land later this year.  Tegra 4i and Snapdragon 800 are somewhat similar on paper -- both are clockd at up to 2.3 GHz, both feature four primary CPU cores, both feature an on-die LTE modem.

Snapdragon 800
Qualcomm is confident the Snapdragon 800 won't be beat. [Image Source: Liliputing]

But Qualcomm is also focused on keeping dominant on the low end.  Its Snapdragon 200 (1.4 GHz quad-core, Adreno 203) will be aimed at sub-$100 USD smartphones, its Snapdragon 400 (1.4 GHz quad-core or up to 1.7 GHz dual-core, plus Adreno 305) will be aimed at $100-300 USD phones.

Currently Qualcomm's high-end chip is the Snapdragon 600 (1.9 GHz quad-core, Adreno 320).  The Snapdragon 600 has already scored some important early design wins, such as the HTC One from HTC Corp. (TPE:2498).

Qualcomm and NVIDIA can't focus solely on each other, though -- they also have to contend with the likes of Intel Corp. (INTC), whose 22 nm chips will soon hit the mobile space.  And then there's Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) both of whom make their own proprietary ARM cores.  By merit of their massive market shares, they also effectively drive the processor market.

Source: The Verge



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: ghz stupidity moves to the phones...
By Pirks on 2/27/2013 1:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The battery will need to be HUGE
Razr HD Maxx


RE: ghz stupidity moves to the phones...
By ssnova703 on 2/27/2013 8:38:20 PM , Rating: 3
Anand debunked and explained the whole higher gHZ's correlating with battery life.

If done right higher ghz= better battery life


I'd have to dig up the article, but essentially Anand explained that the faster the CPU is done with it's task, the quicker it can go back to idle-like states, thus saving battery power... so think... instead of taking 12 sec to load a page while loading out a 1.5ghz cpu... let's say it only takes 5 sec to load that same website with a newer 1.9ghz cpu..and thus going back to a lower freq state...and thus saving battery....


RE: ghz stupidity moves to the phones...
By charleski on 3/3/2013 7:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
This idea first surfaced openly with Intel's HUGI (Hurry Up and Get Idle, also known as Deep Power Down) marketing-speak that they used to champion Centrino 2 back in 2007.

It's a bit iffy because it relies on savings in static power draw from ancillary components outweighing the V^2f increases from the faster CPU. This is highly dependent on the way the device is used. In some cases there is no 'doing it right' unless you can break the laws of thermodynamics, but if your CPU design inflicts a large power penalty simply for having a core active then you may well see a benefit.

I'd be intrigued to see a CPU that's 27% faster load a webpage in under half the time - that would certainly be magical...


By ssnova703 on 3/6/2013 11:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
You and your antics, I was trying to dumb it down, you mistook the big picture in order to attempt to look smart. As for my rough analogy, go look up generations between arm cortex and sunspider benchmarks. That's what I meant by "done right", meaning engineered with HUGI-like-concepts in mind(no breaking the law of physics here, mr. smartypants), rather than what the OP originally implied-that it would be running at full throttle, max frequency at all times, thus equating to much lower battery life. When simply, this is not the case with the newer, more "efficient" progression(by whatever engineering means)to achieve a "faster" chip, by tweaking algorithms, pre-processes, schedulers, etc.

The point, iphone 3GS vs iphone 4S, battery capacity is less than 200mAh's, end result, iphone 4S is more efficient, faster, better, despite high clock rate in it's cpu(yeah yeah, I can go and reference every single part), but if you don't get the point, you're one irrational and prideful idiot. Oh no! "it can't be done!"

You're attempt to appear technical has made you lose touch with the big picture and argument. Which if you stopped for a second to think as an Engineer, you would see that you would agree with me.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki