Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 (Cortex A57) Appears In Benchmark

[Guest]

The Snapdragon 810, Qualcomm's first high-end 64-bit chip based on the new ARMv8 instruction set, gets outed by a recent AnTuTu benchmark.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 (Cortex A57) Appears In Benchmark : Read more

 

[InvalidError]

Or perhaps it is Qualcomm simply realizing that there is no point in this resolution insanity on 4-6" devices with 2-3Ah batteries and putting the brakes on that train wreck. Intel and Samsung are on that same path too: heavily favoring low power over performance.

Considering how uncomfortably hot just about every phone and tablets become after a few minutes of running games, I would be far more interested in halving SoC power than doubling performance.

 

[Mike Friesen]

Intel favoring low power over performance? In the SoC (tablet + phone) field, that's simply not true. Broadwell Y (Intel core M) is designed to fit into fanless tablets, yes they focused on low power for intel core, but getting Intel core into tablets provides a ~50% performance increase over the already powerful z3770, with more than double the graphics performance, and roughly the same power envelope (both atom and core now fanless). I mean, you're technically correct in that intel has gone lower power on it's desktop and notebook cpu's, but the tablet/smartphone space is still seeing rapid growth in performance.

 

[killerchickens]

Tegra chips are power pigs built for tablets not phones.

 

[TheSecondPower]

Qualcomm processors seem to have a good balance of performance and battery life (and cool temperatures), along with competitive prices, which I would think is why most phones have Qualcomm processors and almost none (or none at all?) have Nvidia processors. I think Qualcomm's problem is that they're making good processors instead of processors that sound good after a marketting team gets through with them. People think they want 8-core phone processors and 2560x1440 screen resolutions. I don't think Qualcomm was expecting 64-bit phone processors to also become a fad in 2014. Why would phones need 4GB of RAM? It only takes 2GB to run Windows 7 without problems (obviously more is beneficial, but beyond gaming it's not needed for much that most consumers do). I don't think Qualcomm is falling behind, they're just basing their decisions on real-world performance instead of marketing, and they're selling to more than just the super-high-end smartphone market.

 

[hannibal]

I also expect to see some power-usage competition in the future also in mobile segment. More speed is good in mobile sector also, but we are getting quite near the situation that most people have mobile CPU fast enough for everything they need. Of course there are peoples and applications that can always use more power, but I by self have been looking how long device can operate with one charge for a some time.
Bun one thing is that Qualcomn is also a late. No excuses in there. The 64bit architecture can bring more speed with less electricity, so in the short run it is much more useful that having eight cores or 2560*1440 screen in mobile phone.
I really hope to see a smart phone with 64bit processor and 2 week usage time... But I have to wait many years for that to happen, I hope that it is possible though.

 

[InvalidError]

[quotemsg=13965447,0,60597]I really hope to see a smart phone with 64bit processor and 2 week usage time...[/quotemsg]
Even if you eliminated RAM and CPU/GPU power usage altogether, the display would still run the battery dry in less than 24h worth of continuous use since the display is the second biggest power hog after the SoC when running CPU/IGP-intensive stuff.

 

[joaompp]

Aren't these benchmarks pointless? Devices with new SoC will all be using Android 5 which uses a very different compiler than Dalvik

 

[ericburnby]

ARMs A57 cores aren't even as fast as Apple's A7 cores, and they are already a year old. Not very impressive when your first processor is already outdone by an 18 month old design (by the time the 810 actually ships, which Qualcomm says is early 2015).

And we have the A8 due out very shortly. Apple has doubled performance every year for 3 versions of their processors. If they double again for the A8, then nothing Qualcomm or Samsung has will even come close.

 

[hahmed330]

Or perhaps it is Qualcomm simply realizing that there is no point in this resolution insanity on 4-6" devices with 2-3Ah batteries and putting the brakes on that train wreck. Intel and Samsung are on that same path too: heavily favoring low power over performance.
Considering how uncomfortably hot just about every phone and tablets become after a few minutes of running games, I would be far more interested in halving SoC power than doubling performance.

If you have higher performance then you can scale that down trade performance for power savings. So henceforth higher performance can also means longer battery life. On the other hand display is a power hog so more then 1080p resolution is just not necessary on less then 5 inch displays.

 

[jos_031]

i thought all cortex a57 is ARMv8-A

 

[somebodyspecial]

[quotemsg=13965304,0,351807]Tegra chips are power pigs built for tablets not phones.[/quotemsg]

Are you reading the article here? Or at anandtech? Battery is fine or chromebooks wouldn't be getting 11-13hrs on larger screen than the competition and blowing them away in gpu. You maybe could have said that about older chips, but K1 has no trouble sipping when desired. Again, check the chromebooks acer just announced for order (pre-order). You can clearly see everywhere, that Qcom is not behind, and was caught with their pants down here.

http://anandtech.com/show/8329/revisiting-shield-tablet-gaming-ux-and-battery-life

"After all, Tegra K1 delivers immense amounts of performance when necessary, but manages to sustain low temperatures and long battery life when it it isn't."

I'm sure the goal is tablet first, but the jury is out on phones (higher end is the only place they want to compete anyway).

 

[InvalidError]

[quotemsg=13970393,0,925801]Battery is fine or chromebooks wouldn't be getting 11-13hrs on larger screen than the competition and blowing them away in gpu.[/quotemsg]
Acer has not said what battery size they are putting in their K1 Chromebook yet.

You can get 10+ hours of continuous use out of some Haswell-based laptops by buying the extended battery option.

 

[hannibal]

[quotemsg=13965978,0,125865][quotemsg=13965447,0,60597]I really hope to see a smart phone with 64bit processor and 2 week usage time...[/quotemsg]
Even if you eliminated RAM and CPU/GPU power usage altogether, the display would still run the battery dry in less than 24h worth of continuous use since the display is the second biggest power hog after the SoC when running CPU/IGP-intensive stuff.
[/quotemsg]

True!

 

[somebodyspecial]

[quotemsg=13970825,0,125865][quotemsg=13970393,0,925801]Battery is fine or chromebooks wouldn't be getting 11-13hrs on larger screen than the competition and blowing them away in gpu.[/quotemsg]
Acer has not said what battery size they are putting in their K1 Chromebook yet.

You can get 10+ hours of continuous use out of some Haswell-based laptops by buying the extended battery option.[/quotemsg]

I don't understand:
http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model-datasheet/NX.MPRAA.012
It's been up since the day the first post hit about these. 3220mAh. It was up with the pre-order. It's the same for all K1 models.

http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model-datasheet/NX.MPRAA.007
Including the highest end with 4GB/32GB SSD/1080p/wireless AC etc etc. 11.5hrs, 3220mAh.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Also unlike the Intel ones, 45w psu vs 65w psu's. So It's pretty clear this isn't bad on power compared to the competition correct?