News Qualcomm's Next-Gen Snapdragon 8cx Rivals Intel 11th Gen Tiger Lake in Early Benchmarks

[Admin]

Geekbench scores for Qualcomm's third-generation Snapdragon 8cx have been published.

Qualcomm's Next-Gen Snapdragon 8cx Rivals Intel 11th Gen Tiger Lake in Early Benchmarks : Read more

 

[abufrejoval]

Where is 982/4918 close to the 1721/5955 I see on my i7-1165G7 on Linux? (Yes, Linux and Android-x86 results are typically quite a bit higher than Windows results on the very same hardware and single core Tiger Lake pretty much on par with my Ryzen 5800X 1794/11120 with 4.95 GHz PBO vs 4.7GHz and 4 vs 8 cores)

The multi-threaded scores point to an 8-core chip, which I'll admit is always nicer all other things being equal, but not when 4 cores on one hand deliver the work of 8 on the other. Normally that's just how CMOS scales to frequency.

If it were 5Watts top power vs 30Watts (that's all cores sustained Wattage on my Tiger Lake NUC9), at the cost of doubling the cores and losing single core Oomph, we could be talking.

And yes, even the latest Atoms seem 10 years behind against these figures.

As good as the Qualcomm cores are, they are not near the M1, nor do they threaten Ryzen or Tiger Lake just yet on the same battleground and you know that Anton, so please don't fall to the temptation of a headline like this.

 

[RandomGuy2]

Exactly my thoughts!

 

[jakjawagon]

Similar multicore performance to a 15W CPU with half as many cores. If previous generations are any indication, I expect devices with this processor to cost at least 1.5 times as much as an equivalent Intel/AMD device.

 

[zodiacfml]

commendable now that this is far different from its mobile counterpart, ditching the slower cores. pricing is where the fight is. they can't simply sell products with this part more than it costs Apple M1 products, considering M1 is more powerful and will be soon updated, and Apple price premium

 

[Flemishdragon]

What who where when??? So the M1 at 3.2Ghz surpasses an overclocked 4.5GhzAmd 4.8GhzIntel, in singel thread??? There is no way this is not possible. The benchmarks are comparing to standard non overclocked probably all on +3.2 Ghz-ish or baloney sausage payed for benchmark?

 

[hotaru.hino]

What who where when??? So the M1 at 3.2Ghz surpasses an overclocked 4.5GhzAmd 4.8GhzIntel, in singel thread??? There is no way this is not possible. The benchmarks are comparing to standard non overclocked probably all on +3.2 Ghz-ish or baloney sausage payed for benchmark?

And 16 years ago, 2.4 GHz AMD processors were beating the snot out of 3.8GHz Intel processors.

If you know how to make a processor, then you can do things like this.

 

[Flemishdragon]

And 16 years ago, 2.4 GHz AMD processors were beating the snot out of 3.8GHz Intel processors.

If you know how to make a processor, then you can do things like this.

Which AMD cpu are you referring to you mean the first dual core from AMD or something that's in multi thread. Yea had one but as I recall it was only 2.5 times faster in multithread ( it was running overclocked on both core at at 3.4 I think forgot) my Intel was3.2Ghz only one single core? So that is still very close considering the Intel was older and had also a slower Front Side Bus and only one core. Pretty amazing but seems like a M1 can do 1683 single thread geekbench 5, the Intel has to be on 5.3ghz to have a 1900-ish score so that's only desktop still faster but seems like Intel has a lot work to do.

 

[watzupken]

I feel ARM chips may struggle with adoption on Windows OS. Unlike Apple that's got a tight integration on hardware and software, there is no such tight integration on Windows. The OS in my opinion is looking nicer, but consequently also becoming a resource hog. In addition, I don't feel there is strong support by Microsoft to push software developers to develop their software natively for ARM based chips as well. So while the Qualcomm chip may look great running on selected benchmarks, I wonder how it will fare in real world applications with an extra layer of emulation.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Which AMD cpu are you referring to you mean the first dual core from AMD or something that's in multi thread. Yea had one but as I recall it was only 2.5 times faster in multithread ( it was running overclocked on both core at at 3.4 I think forgot) my Intel was3.2Ghz only one single core? So that is still very close considering the Intel was older and had also a slower Front Side Bus and only one core. Pretty amazing but seems like a M1 can do 1683 single thread geekbench 5, the Intel has to be on 5.3ghz to have a 1900-ish score so that's only desktop still faster but seems like Intel has a lot work to do.

I was thinking of the AMD FX-53 vs. the Pentium 4 670. However a cursory glance at the 670's review shows that the FX-55, a 2.6GHz 1C/1T processor, was able to keep a small lead in most tests over the 670 despite being clocked at 3.8GHz and being a 1C/2T processor (https://www.anandtech.com/show/1695)

Actually heck, I didn't have to go that back. I'm pretty sure Ivy Bridges were easily dancing around the FX-9590.

Either way, beating or matching the performance of much faster clocked processors isn't an unheard of thing.