Discussion Qualcomm Snapdragon Thread

[FlameTail]

I thought all things related to Qualcomm Snapdragon - Product Discussion/Speculation/Rumours/Leaks should best discussed in it's own master thread. That includes all Snapdragon 8/7/6 series Mobile SoCs, X series PC SoCs, and related technologies.

 

[FlameTail]

Qualcomm has announced the Snapdragon 7 gen 3.

Brand-New Snapdragon 7-Series Mobile Platform Provides Remarkable Performance and Power Efficiency with First-in-Tier Features

www.qualcomm.com

 

[FlameTail]

Snapdragon X Elite all slides:

 

[FlameTail]

So according to rumours, 8G4 will have a 2P+6E Oryon CPU.

I wonder what CPU the 7G4 will have. Oryon or ARM Cortex?

If it's the former (which I find to be the more interesting and exciting possibility), what configuration will the 7G4 have? I can imagine 2P+2E or 1P+3E.

Since Qualcomm is designing their own cores, their is no licensing cost-per-core they have to pay. So the only way to cut costs to make a cheaper part is to cut die area.

 

[qmech]

Snapdragon 7 gen 3 seemingly has no Cortex X core, and the GPU is inferior too.

It's.apparent this SoC is not from the same.lineage as the 7+ Gen 2.

Qualcomm's naming scheme is trash.

Snapdragon 7 gen 1:
- 1x A710 @ 2.4 GHz (also available in 2.5 GHz)
- 3x A710 @ 2.36 GHz
- 4x A510 @ 1.8 GHz
- Adreno 644 @ 443 MHz

Snapdragon 7s gen 2:
- 4x A78 @ 2.4 GHz
- 4x A55 @ 1.95 GHz
- Adreno 710 @ 940 MHz

Snapdragon 7+ gen 2:
- 1x X2 @ 2.91 GHz
- 3x A710 @ 2.49 GHz
- 4x A510 @ 1.8 GHz
- Adreno 725 @ 580 MHz

Snapdragon 7 gen 3:
- 1x A715 (?) @ 2.63 GHz
- 3x A715 (?) @ 2.4 GHz
- 4x A510 (?) @ 1.8GHz
- Adreno 720 @ ? GHz

The Wikipedia page for Snapdragon SoCs currently claims A715 and A510 cores for the gen 3, but the citation for the section does not include that information. It seems perfectly plausible.

 

[FlameTail]

Assuming the X Elite's successor is released in the next Snapdragon Summit at the end of 2024, what node might it use?



N3E seems like the obvious option. But will N3P be available by that time?

It is listed that N3P will be in volume production in H2 2024. But then N3B was in volume production since Late 2022, but the first products with it didn't land until H2 2023.

 

[FlameTail]

Qualcomm's naming scheme is trash.

Yup it's all over the place, like some SUV gone off road.

Snapdragon 7 gen 1:
- 1x A710 @ 2.4 GHz (also available in 2.5 GHz)
- 3x A710 @ 2.36 GHz
- 4x A510 @ 1.8 GHz
- Adreno 644 @ 443 MHz

Snapdragon 7s gen 2:
- 4x A78 @ 2.4 GHz
- 4x A55 @ 1.95 GHz
- Adreno 710 @ 940 MHz

Snapdragon 7+ gen 2:
- 1x X2 @ 2.91 GHz
- 3x A710 @ 2.49 GHz
- 4x A510 @ 1.8 GHz
- Adreno 725 @ 580 MHz

Snapdragon 7 gen 3:
- 1x A715 (?) @ 2.63 GHz
- 3x A715 (?) @ 2.4 GHz
- 4x A510 (?) @ 1.8GHz
- Adreno 720 @ ? GHz

The Wikipedia page for Snapdragon SoCs currently claims A715 and A510 cores for the gen 3, but the citation for the section does not include that information. It seems perfectly plausible.

Fun fact:... neither the Snapdragon 7+ gen 2 or 7s gen 2 are original 7 series chips.

What do I mean by that? 7+ gen 2 is a cut down version of the 8+ gen 1. Apparently Qualcomm reduced the clock speeds and fused off some parts like half of the memory controllers.

Then the Snapdragon 7s Gen 2 is using the same die as the 6 gen 2, but overclocking the core's.

This is quite funny. Both Gen 2 chips of the 7 series were impostors.

So the 7 gen 3 is the first 7-series chip with it's own die, since the 7 gen 1.

 

[FlameTail]

Oryon: 3227 @4.3 GHz
Oryon: 2841 @3.78 GHz

Oryon at 3.78 GHz matches the M2 Max ST, which is:

M2 Max: 2841 @3.7 GHz

Oryon matches M2 Max at 30% less power. But they are made on different nodes. So what is the energy efficiency advantage of Oryon at ISO node?


N5: 100% Power
N5P: 90% Power
N4P: 78% Power

So N5P -> N4P, is a 13% Power reduction.

This means for the 30% less power claim Qualcomm makes, 13% only comes from the node. The rest of the 17% reduction comes from the CPU Core design. That is quite good efficiency.

 

[FlameTail]

How did he manage to misquote the 45 TOPS INT4 as INT8, when the official Qualcomm slide is literally attached right below?

 

[qmech]

The Qualcomm slide does not necessarily say 45 TOPS INT4. It could just as easily be read as two different, completely unrelated, features: Supports INT4 and has a throughput of 45 TOPS. For NPUs the performance is usually given in INT8, so using INT4 without clearly saying that it was INT4 could easily be considered misleading.

This lack of clarity is why my comment in the Zen4 APU thread hedged quite strongly. I have not seen any definitive source pointing at one over the other.

As for Qualcomm's NPU in particular (including their previous NPUs), I was unable to find a list of supported data formats. AMD's XDNA unit and Google's Tensor support both FP16 (half-precision floating point) and BF16 (more bits allocated to exponent at the expense of the mantissa).

 

[FlameTail]

Of course. My mistake.

 

[FlameTail]

https://x.com/Tech_Reve/status/1727439416829047061?s=20

Snapdragon 8 Gen 4/5 leak.


8G4, 8G4 FG= TSMC N3E

8G5 N3P/8G5 FG SF2
or
8G5 N3P/8G5 FG N2

*Note: FG stands for "For Galaxy", the special version that is used in Samsung's Galaxy phones.

 

[FlameTail]

Some food for thought:

Qualcomm now has their own custom CPU architecture. Assuming nothing goes wrong (with the lawsuits and all), Oryon has a bright future.

The question: will Qualcomm entirely abandon ARM Cortex now they have got Oryon?

I see no reason to use Cortex in the high end products, because Oryon is better after all.

The issue is the lower end products, because can Oryon scale all the way down?

Stuff like the low-end Snapdragon 4 series and Snapdragon Wear for smartwatches. Will they use Oryon for those, or will Cortex continue to power them?

 

[soresu]

Qualcomm now has their own custom CPU architecture

Just to be clear Phoenix/Oryon is their 4th custom CPU µArch if you only include Snapdragon/consumer SoC's, and their 5th* if you count their short lived foray into the ARM server business.

*I think it was 5, but it might have been 6. Falkor was announced, but Saphira was definitely in planning before their server business was canned.

 

[Doug S]

Some food for thought:

Qualcomm now has their own custom CPU architecture. Assuming nothing goes wrong (with the lawsuits and all), Oryon has a bright future.

The question: will Qualcomm entirely abandon ARM Cortex now they have got Oryon?

I see no reason to use Cortex in the high end products, because Oryon is better after all.

The issue is the lower end products, because can Oryon scale all the way down?

Stuff like the low-end Snapdragon 4 series and Snapdragon Wear for smartwatches. Will they use Oryon for those, or will Cortex continue to power them?

One would presume the Nuvia guys will add a small core to the mix, that would be good for lower end products and perhaps watches.

 

[FlameTail]

One would presume the Nuvia guys will add a small core to the mix, that would be good for lower end products and perhaps watches.

Indeed.

There is very good reason to develop an E-core.

 

[FlameTail]

Do you think Qualcomm will release the successor of the X Elite at the next Snapdragon Summit?

Laptops with the X Elite will launch in mid-2024. Snapdragon Summit 2024 will be held in October, if the pattern holds. That means the X Elite has no less than 5 months under the sun before it's replaced.

 

[Doug S]

Do you think Qualcomm will release the successor of the X Elite at the next Snapdragon Summit?

Laptops with the X Elite will launch in mid-2024. Snapdragon Summit 2024 will be held in October, if the pattern holds. That means the X Elite has no less than 5 months under the sun before it's replaced.

They announced the X Elite a half year before it became available. What makes you think next time the gap between announcement and availability will be shorter? When has Qualcomm ever announced something and said "it is shipping in products next month"

 

[Tup3x]

They announced the X Elite a half year before it became available. What makes you think next time the gap between announcement and availability will be shorter? When has Qualcomm ever announced something and said "it is shipping in products next month"

Snapdragon 8 gen 3 pretty much....

 

[FlameTail]

The delay with the X Elite is I believe because OEMs need to design new laptops to house the SoC. If not the entire laptop, atleast the motherboard.

Also I feel that Qualcomm strategically delayed the availability till Windows 12 is out(?) So they can go full blast on the AI features

 

[soresu]

Also I feel that Qualcomm strategically delayed the availability till Windows 12 is out(?) So they can go full blast on the AI features

We still have nothing concrete on W12 which seems unlikely less than a year before release.

 

[FlameTail]

Despite looking promising, the Snapdragon X Elite still has a long way to go

For Qualcomm to truly succeed, Microsoft has to step up its game and take Windows on Arm seriously

www.xda-developers.com

Microsoft must play their part now.

Edit: Summary of Article

Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chip lags behind Apple's SoCs, utilizing an older 4nm node compared to Apple's more advanced 3nm process. This affects performance and efficiency.

Qualcomm's success with the X Elite chip depends largely on Microsoft optimizing and developing software around it. Unlike Apple, Qualcomm doesn't have control over both hardware and software elements, which puts them at a disadvantage.

The state of Windows on Arm is still lacking compared to macOS with Apple Silicon. Developers are less incentivized to create apps for Arm64 Windows-powered devices due to Apple's larger user base.

__

My apologies. I will ensure that henceforth I will not post links without comment.

 

[qmech]

Despite looking promising, the Snapdragon X Elite still has a long way to go

For Qualcomm to truly succeed, Microsoft has to step up its game and take Windows on Arm seriously

www.xda-developers.com

Microsoft must play their part now.

I really dislike the recent tendency around here of posting links to an article and adding one line that gives absolutely zero insight into the nature of the linked article.

It is also against forum rules:

Do not just drop links without comment. People need to know what are in the links before deciding whether to click on it.
It is your job as a poster to comment on it.

As for the linked article, that has to be the least inlightening article I have managed to read through in a while.

The first half absolutely trashes Qualcomm for going with TSMC's 4nm process instead of 3nm like Apple and can be succinctly reduced to the following quote:

there is no denying that the 3nm process would bring sizable performance and efficiency gains to the table, and actually allow Qualcomm to compete with Apple.

That statement is of extremely questionable accuracy. There is no reason at present to believe the difference between TSMC's best shipping 3nm and 4nm nodes is more than a few percent - hardly "sizeable" gains.

It seems unlikely that the success or failure of Qualcomm's X Elite is going to come down to the chosen process node.

The second half of the article might have a point, but unfortunately not a single example or shred of proof is given of the headline thesis that "Microsoft has to take Windows on Arm more seriously". Instead, variations of this are simply repeated ad nauseam:

"more worrying is the state of Windows on Arm"
" Microsoft’s endeavors materialized a bit too late, leaving Qualcomm behind in no man’s land."
"[Qualcomm] will inevitably be set back by Microsoft’s integration."

There are no examples and no arguments to bolster those claims. The lone tangential example is the lack of a native Google Chrome for WoA. However, the slightest bit of research would have shown that Google removed the single biggest obstacle to full native Chrome on WoA, namely native Widevine support, presumably in advance of a native binary. Chromium (and Edge + Firefox) are already available.

 

[moinmoin]

Also it's kind of hard to expect Microsoft to take Windows on Arm seriously when it doesn't take Windows itself seriously these days. But yeah, one can't take such articles seriously either.

 

[FlameTail]

The first half absolutely trashes Qualcomm for going with TSMC's 4nm process instead of 3nm like Apple and can be succinctly reduced to the following quote:

Indeed. That whole part is pointless filler. There is a thread on r/hardware where they have pointed out just as much.