Phones don't unlock more performance for being on the charger LOL. It is the other way around, they can throttle more because of the heat generated by charging.
I see people saying this multiple times. Phones do throttle running Geekbench even in single core. They can't sustain more than 4-5W and that's including everything releasing heat like display, Modem, RAM, etc. If you run the benchmark multiple times you will see the scores getting lower.
Just fot reference current SD8 Gen 2 for smartphones scores ~2000 Sigle core in Geekbench 6 ( on Android with no emulation obviously ). And in a few months we will have the next one with at least another 10% improvement in SC.
It is exclusively about some patents of 3G CDMA which is a dead technology that is being discontinued. Not general 3G just some networks used in few contries. And patents expire.
It was more than one model and you don't know the quantity. But the point is that you were wrong. It doesn't matter the quantity or models. Even just 1 sold disproves what you said. And again it is totally ridiculous what you are implying. Did you read my complete response in my previous...
Yes, it has some blocks of Google's IP like ISP and NPU. But the design of the SoC and integration of its parts is made by Samsung Semiconductor Division. It is just another example that contradicts what the other user was saying.
They do still sell chips, at least they try, but they have a tiny market share compared to Qualcomm and Mediatek. Currently I only know about Vivo, Meizu, Google Pixel. And various automotive brands use Exynos chips or have deals for future projects. So it makes sense to try to expand to new...
First, this is an article from 2017 more than 6 years ago.
Second, if you really read and understand the article it doesn't imply what you are saying and it would be illegal anyway.
Third, Samsung doesn't license Exynos chips to other companies. Samsung SLI chip division sells SoC like any...
I also think that it is probably Samsung. Their Exynos chip division is currently struggling. They are looking for new businesses apart from Smartphones to grow, like car's infotainment. So laptops/tablet's SoC is the next natural thing, they have prolonged their contract with AMD for GPU IP...
Yeah, or at least late compared to TSMC. The port of the SD8G1 from Samsung to TSMC's N4 brought up to 30% lower power in CPU and GPU.
We don't know how much the yields impacted the performance but at least the newer versions of Samsung 4nm should be more competitive. From 5LPE to 4LPP there is...
Yes SD888 and SD8 Gen 1 use Samsung 5nm. But it is not correct to call it just a derivative, because it has some meaningful changes and improvements to density compared to their 7nm. And In density Samsung 5/4nm is comparable to TSMC's 5/4nm. In terms of efficiency is difficult to say, because...
@Abwx You can do "software simulations" of performance that pretty much represents what an actual chip would deliver. No need to fab both cores just to compare them to have an idea of their characteristics. This is how all CPU designers work.
Again ARM IP is Process agnostic. The client then...
@Abwx If you read the article, it will be much better to understand and much better than trying to guess things on your own.
ARM usually makes their numbers/presentations very similar every year.
They mostly compare things at ISO conditions because their architecture is Process agnostic, and...
Nvidia benefited incredibly from using Samsung 8nm. They had a less expensive node not too inferior to TSMC 7nm that could supply Nvidia all the volume they wanted in a time that almost everyone was short supplied and had to pay higher for a good position in the queue for TSMC.
But for the next...
The name doesn't matter, the problem is that ARM doesn't look to be able to design a competitive low power CPU as Apple.
And if they did it would in the 5 family because of its nature of efficient core and as you said they don't use more power than a Cortex A5xxx.
At the same website they talk about the yields of leading edge nodes of Samsung. And the "reports" of 20-30% yields were false. And now are much more improved.
Taking in mind that the Performance CPU cores have 20% lower power consumption I doubt they are the same IP. TSMC's 4nm doesn't bring any efficiency over the N5P that the A15 uses. It brings minimal reduction in area and cost and that's it.
New enormous R&D complex from Samsung in Korea.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17538/samsungs-15-billion-rd-complex-to-overcome-limits-of-semiconductor-scaling
It is the other way in fact. And mostly in this forums of desktop enthusiasms that have profound relationships with AMD/Intel because it is all they have known for years.
At first it was the adversion to the idea of TSMC over taking Intel in process node manufacturing. I had a lot of arguments...
Where are you taking your numbers for TSMC being 47% more efficient? Compared to what?
The only current product manufactured at Samsung and TSMC 4nm is the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1. The tweaked version and made in TSMC is UP TO 30% more efficient. And maybe they did other changes apart from the...
I think people are not considering very important points.
ARM updates their architecture yearly. I don't think over 10% IPC improvements every year can be considered bad.
This predictions of performance are at ISO PROCESSES.
When AMD or Intel publish their performance targets are combined...
Samsung doesn't have "internal" nodes. It is BS that people keep repeating and now they think it is a reality.
They don't open to external customers? Again another lie. It is a myth that people keep repeating and now becomes the truth.
Samsung Foundry always offers their "Early" version on...
Here in the review of the iPhone 12, Andrei analyzed the "little" cores from the A14 and said they have 4x the performance of the Cortex A55 while consuming similar amounts of power. Resulting in 3x in efficiency.
I think Apple "little" cores are more similar to ARM middle cores. If you take...
Before the end of the year there will be a couple of new SoC's announcements with the new IPs inside them. Sometimes they are in the consumer hands in the same year as they are announced ( the ARM IPs ) but if not, then Q1 next year.
Yep. But you can clearly see that the jump over A77 to next one is similar to the improvement from A75 to A76 and A76 to A77, which both brought over 20% increase in IPC and overall single core performance. And the title of the graph is "Peak Performance" and the dot is placed over "Cortex...
I know the blog mentions that the new cores are compared to A78. But looking at the graph it is clearly using X1 as the reference point and not A78. The graph is "Peak CPU Performance" per ARM that normally means peak single CPU Performance at max clock without throttling.
The jump from A77 is...
@itsmydamnation
That's is a flaw in the design from Qualcomm, not of the process node. Can we stop blaming foundries for bad designs from the companies ? Same thing now with people trashing SS for upcoming Nvidia's GPUs. Vega was a failure when jumping from 28nm to 14nm FinFet.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.