Comments Locked

40 Comments

Back to Article

  • WorldWithoutMadness - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    So basically 64-bit SD lines has been degraded to kyro and non-kyro. Kyro only for hiend (8xx) and everything else can be any number (430 get 8 cores :D) and then slap whatever stuff in it.

    I was hoping they could go 6cores for 820 kyro and everything else can get upgrade to 4 cores Kyro. Now prolly depends on A72 performs, this might be the end of QC.
  • bug77 - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    I wouldn't be surprised if Kryo is replaced soon, too. After all it's based on A57 and A72 is already out. If that's the case, it makes sense Qualcomm isn't pushing Kryo to all segments.
    Plus, while A57 was plagued with overheating issues, A53 was (and still is) a perfectly sound solution.
  • milli - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    I can't believe there are still people out there who still don't get it.
    Qualcomm is building these cores from the ground up. Qualcomm is an ARM architectural licensee. Kyro is not based on A57.
  • Jon Tseng - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Yeah. Plus A72 is already in the 618/620 - an /inferior/ product to the 820...
  • lilmoe - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    "Inferior"...

    Probably inferior in efficiency at the lower clocks (provided the same process node), but I'd like to see clock-to-clock performance.
  • bug77 - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    They're "inferior" because they are clocked lower (and missing two A72 cores in case of 618), have a weaker GPU, a less capable LTE modem and less memory bandwidth.
    We don't really know how A72 stacks against Kryo until someone actually runs some benchmarks on them.
  • bug77 - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Wrong choice of words.
    What I meant is Qualcomm has built Kryo to "beat" A57, but at the same time ARM was doing the same thing (albeit in a very different way, because they stuck to big.LITTLE) with A72. There's probably many goodies in A72 that Qualcomm could incorporate into Kryo (or a subsequent iteration). Then again, maybe they already have.
  • phoenix_rizzen - Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - link

    Would have been nice if they bumped the model number up for the 64-bit SoCs, to differentiate them from the 32-bit SoCs (ie, S900, S700, S500 for the 64-bit SoCs).

    And then bumped it again for the custom-core SoCs (ie S1000). And then they could have sub-divided the 1000-series based on performance (S1200, S1400, S1600, S1800, for example).

    But, that would be too logical, and provide too much information to people, so Qualcomm decided against it. :(
  • iamiguel - Sunday, September 20, 2015 - link

    All of their recent chipsets bar the S210 are 64bit so they probably wouldn't need to differentiate that fact anymore - I believe that having that many separate model divisions could be somewhat excessive also so, A knowledge consumer can be sure that the 200 series is low end, 400 is midrange etc whereas having a 1200, 1400 series etc, might lead to confusion.
  • iamiguel - Sunday, September 20, 2015 - link

    disregard the extra "that" and change that knowledge to knowledgable. It's a pity I couldn't edit :(
  • Le Geek - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    I wonder how you can call the snapdragon 430 an "incremental" upgrade over the 410.
    Lets just talk of the gpu (the 410's biggest bottleneck), considering the 405 more than twice as fast as the 306 and the fact that 505 will be even faster doesn't make the update seem incremental at all.
  • JoshHo - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Given that these appear to still be using 28LP judging by the clock speed of the CPU clusters, it's somewhat incremental relative to high end mobile SoCs where we often see a change in GPU, ISP, CPU, DSPs, fixed function blocks, in addition to a new process node.

    This isn't necessarily a slight against Qualcomm, the nature of the mid-range market is very different from the high-end which is why SoCs tend to be more incremental in nature.
  • darkich - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Still doesn't take away from Geek's point - having twice the CPU cores and double the GPU speed is simply not incremental.
  • JoshHo - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    That's fair, I just wanted to explain why I felt the update is relatively incremental.
  • Le Geek - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    I wonder why these budget offerings don't make a switch to atleast 28nm HPM.
    The LP process makes me wonder if the 430 will be plagued by the same overheating / throttling issues as the 615.
  • LiviuTM - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Perhaps costs? LP is clearly the cheapest.
  • lilmoe - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Cheaper, but also more efficient in average clocks of those small cores. HPM is faster and more efficient when you go higher in performance and clocks.
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    8 tiny A53 at "up to 1.2 GHz" - if such a phone is thermally throttling they isulated the SOC in vacuum.
  • Valis - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    New SD 6xx still 28 nm? Hmm, I was hoping for something 14 nm that wouldn't be the battery hog the 615 is. Don't need much more perf than 618 and 620, but could use the power consumption of the newer tech.
  • lilmoe - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    I believe the 430 and 617 are targeted for the low end and lower mid-range respectively. The 618 and 620 will target the midrange and upper-midrange respectively, the former having a hexa-core A72/A53 configuration, the latter having a similar octa-core configuration, and both rocking an Adreno 510 GPU.

    You're missing a couple of SKUs that were also annouced:
    https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/proce...

    I agree with Le Geek. This is a major class shift in performance, where midrange SoCs are comparable to today's flagships (sans GPU).
  • lilmoe - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Nevermind the "missing SKUs", I just saw the charts (did I actually miss them or were they added later?!).

    Anyway, It's worth mentioning that the link mentions the Adreno 510 GPU for the 618 and 620.
  • Spectrophobic - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Gee, I wonder what happened to "Quality Cores, Not More Cores" agenda of Qualcomm...
  • darkich - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Snapdragon 820
  • ToTTenTranz - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    With a better GPU, it's possible the S430 will perform better than the S617, right?
  • Le Geek - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Exactly what I was wondering. I assume the 430 will not be releasing in the same time frame as the 617. Maybe it might get a release date alongside 620.
  • WorldWithoutMadness - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    620 got A72 so definitely 617 is the wierdest move if they're not pulling something like inventory cleaning or rebadging stuffs.
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    S430 has lower clocked CPU cores and lower clocked memory, so I don't think it's going to outperform S617. And the GPU.. well, it's only got to be "fast enough". It's not like you could run demanding games at native resolution on any of these devices anyway.
  • trane - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Some sites are reporting these are 20nm parts. Any clarity on that? Would be surprising given 620 is 28nm. The Snapdragon line up is really getting messy now...
  • trane - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Those sites are wrong, Qualcomm's official page does say 28nm.
  • Klug4Pres - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Can someone explain to me - are we going to get a mid-range 64-bit offering? It seems as though there is high-end stuff based on Kryo/A57/A72 and then the low-end A53 stuff, which is marketed as mid-range if you can stuff enough cores in. Am I missing something?
  • icrf - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Well, honestly, what are you expecting? The market today is just A53 and A57 combinations, it's just growing by two new types of cores and things shift around accordingly. I rather like the look of the 618. It looks similar to the high-end 808 of today, but hopefully priced for the mid-range, given its model number.
  • mforce - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    These SOCs really do look exciting and even the weakest one seems to still be a decent one as far as CPU power is concerned. They'll certainly create some problems for Mediatek.
  • BMNify - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    These SOCs won't create any problem for Mediatek, Qualcomm will not be able to compete on price.
  • nikaldro - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Can't they just give us 2 A72s for the lower end, instead of that 8 A53 garbage?
  • Cod3rror - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Agreed! Is there a benefit to 8 A53s compared to 4? Throw 2 A72s in there. But I guess they have to A72 for mid-high end.
  • Cod3rror - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    *keep
  • kyuu - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    So there still aren't any Qualcomm SoCs outside of the high-end offerings that offer the passive-listening feature to allow for "Hey, Cortana" functionality on Win Phones, correct?
  • Cod3rror - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    So can be expect 430 in Moto G 4th generation? I wonder if Snapdragon 430 has a barometer.
  • exmachiner - Sunday, September 20, 2015 - link

    From the clockspeeds I'm guessing 620/618 will end up on the 28nm node as a replacement for 808. 820 will probably be 16nm FINFET, and obviously perform better. So the only hope of seeing a full-fledged A72 core chip on 16nm is Mediatek as Qualcomm will keep sabotaging it till they have a significantly better core design.
  • Fidelator - Sunday, September 20, 2015 - link

    Other than the GPU I fail to see how the 430 is any better than the 425, are the specs actually mixed up?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now