If they can get it in a device with 4GB/64GB, Pie, and a 64 bit kernal in Q1 2019 for $300-350 then they will have a winner. Unfortunately that will probably only happen in China, India etc.
A Mi 8 Lite with 6GB/128GB is about $300 and that comes with a 660. No Pie but that's presumably coming soon. I just want Pie, MicroSD, Android One and a 670/675 at $250-300.
Android One is more important than any specific Android version for you will get constant Android updates with the Android One program.
So Nokia just announced the 6.1 Plus in July and 7.1 in Oct of 2018, which is in these price points that you just requested. These nokia phones uses the Qualcomm 636 (4 cortex a73, 4 cortex a53) so I bet we will see similar phones in a year or so running this new snapdragon 675 with 2 cortex a76 and 6 cortex a55.
It may just not be Q1 2019 but instead a later date.
Really though, what is are Janks? Is that like application hesitation or a period of reduced framerate? Even the tiny text at the bottom of the slide doesn't define it and I've never heard the term before. It sounds like a made up work.
Qualcomm and their ultra-confusing lineup... The 636, 660 and 710 are closely related but the 636 and 660 are getting more design wins. The 710 is probably priced too high and too close to the 845 in terms of performance.
I've used Mi 8's with the 660 and 710 chips, I can't tell any difference between them in normal use and the 660 is more than good enough. My old 650 still rocks against a lot of newer chips although power consumption is higher.
For me new chips makes sense because of the new ISP and other things that gets upgraded along with the efficiency Performance is also good to have but for my usage that does not make any difference
those configs are WEIRD ASF. most of this I understand (kind of) but 6 cores at higher clock to chew battery even more and 11nm..totally weird.
Likely because it is Samsung and "claimed" higher performance it will also have a higher price because of such (real world "gain" likely to be at the very most in the range of tops ~2% mixed usage performance at probably an extra 5% battery use) because having a good size battery in these super easy to shatter phones is impossible, but yet they figure out how to make them thinner and thinner.
>:(
so they increase clock rate for the 6 core (600Mhz combined) reduced clock on the 2 core (400mhz combined) reduction in the modem capability by 200Mhz as well....hmmm, it is QC after all, but I do not picture this being "faster" at all, (marketing is very rarely real world accurate)
though some of the 7nm stuff looks VERY promising.
Unless they dropped volts or something that much more on the 6 cores and lost a bit of speed modem wise which helped it "sip power" even more and did some extra fancy trickery to make sure use least amount of power possible while always in maximal performance mode something along those lines.
but seriously 11nm da fook..bad enough everyone is playing with die shrink naming these days, now they are "mix and matching" to confused naming even more...I guess when folks see 10nm it might back fire in their face because "oh this must be older gen, I think I will go to the "smaller" number instead"
Or they are just trying to get each other all "wound up" with their fancy moronic naming game??
They might as well just start calling them by the chip model number and nothing more, it is getting out of hand.
on another note, if they can do really silly chip designs i.e BIG.little that have very little difference in clock speed seemingly to "hurt" performance more then "help" battery life, why not just go way out there and do 2 cores at a high speed, 2 or 4 cores at medium and 2 at low speed so they could ensure highest possible performance at lowest power usage no matter what the device is doing, hell it might "allow" the 2 slowest cores worry about all the background crd so the higher performing cores can worry about the "heavy lifting" or something.
The first thing you need to try to understand that not all cores are equal. A newer more advanced core will outperform an older core even when running at a significantly lower frequency. So yes, this is definitely much faster than the 710. Also a big core could run at 800MHz and still be faster than a little core at 1.7GHz. And maximum clock frequency as listed is just that. If there is not much work to do the active cores will run at a much lower frequency (to gain power efficiency) and some cores will be switched off.
What the hell have you been smoking... 11nm is the physical size of the transistor. 14++ is still a 14nm transistor. 11nm is much closer to 10nm than 14nm... There is no way the 11nm is 14++ but marketed differently. That would be false information
A depth map is exactly what it sounds like: the intensity of a pixel correlates to the object's distance from the camera.
Most likely the example image is a fake put together by Qualcomm's marketing department for illustrative purposes. Though it could have also been taken by a single camera phone that can't use the parallax effect to directly map distance.
This actually looks like it's ment to be by its wide adopteption rate the successor of S636 and by it's design philosophy of the S650. It's directly aimed against the Mediatek Helio P60 and it's successor series. 11nm LPP is a last Samsungs 14/16 nm renamed node ment to complete against also similar renamed TSMC's 12nm one (upon which the P60 is made), its a cheapest FinFET node which is a good thing. On the other hand A76's on it (even in quantity of only two) won't be efficient which brings me to a conclusion that price will be paid in maximum GPU clock as there is a reason QC is branding it as lower tier A612 even we know it's a same single cluster design as the A615/A616 are. It will probably at least match the A512 performance while being more power efficient. From a design standard point the S675 looks very promising bringing to users only what they really need all do 11nm FinFET have much sense from economic standpoint the GloFo 22nm FD-SOI would have even more sense & additional benefits (price, lower standby power consumption, much lower RF & mixed power consumption) there is still a concern about A76's power consumption on that note. 11nm FinFET is still behind density & efficiency of even first gen of Samsung 10nm FinFET not to mention third one called as 8nm FinFET but that will probably be resolved for S7xx series successors.
If the Samsungs 7nm LPP with EUV is in really 20% cheaper than 7nm with DUV that would also make it price competitive to 10nm node which means that there is little to no reason for using earlier FinFET node's counting in addition benefits all do development costs is increase it's not something that large manufacturer like QC can't compensate for.
The key thing about the 650, 636, 660 and 675 are that they're good enough for most tasks. They're not the fastest SoCs but the combo of low price, high CPU and GPU performance and high efficiency make them perfect for the $200-400 market. I'd rather not get something like a Poco F1 with a flagship chip and corners cut everywhere else to meet a low price point.
As for Mediatek, their GPU designs are still woeful compared to Adreno. They've been making big strides on power efficiency though.
With pocophone the whole market is Disturbed, 670 and 710 devices are more costly than 845 because of that device, only reason I am excited to have powerful processor is because I can have a powerful ISP which will enable better HDR photography and videography _ Also new architecture with smaller processor size with SAMSUNG LPP vs TSMC process means much more efficient processor
I would prefer a 660 instead of the 845 for power efficiency. I don't game, HDR and slow motion capture work fine on the 660 and it's faster while being more efficient than the legendary 650.
It seems like there isn't much seperation between the faster and slower CPU core clusters. Would two Kyro 460 processor cores running at 2.0GHz accessing 256KB L2 be that much less efficient than 6 of the same processor cores running only 200MHz slower with access to 64KB L2? Maybe they could save silicon on the die by just getting more aggressive with clock reductions on the two faster cores and not including ~4 of the smaller CPUs.
Big cores typically have 2-3x the IPC of small cores (more cache, more pipelines, out of order execution).
Having 6 small cores for 8 total is probably a concession to demands from phone makers marketing depts. Some years back Qualcom very publicly denounced the 8x small core designs a few of their competitors were making as stupidly wasting die space and that 2xbig 2xsmall and 2x/4x combos would provide much better bang for the buck in midrange devices and stated they'd never make them. A few weeks later they walked the latter back in the face of OEMs who said they'd buy 8xsmall SoCs from mediatek/allwinner/etc because their marketing depts didn't think they could sell sub 8core phones at anything beyond very bottom tier prices because "consumers are stupid and all they know is that '8 is better than 6 or 4'".
Though if most applications are written to only take advantage of a max of 4 threads maybe having some spare cpu resources (given such weak cores) isn't such a bad idea. Plus the battery life (and efficiency) of the small cores is much better.
All six A55's use same amount of energy as one A76. In SMP tasks using floating point operations six A55's will be faster (when software can utilise that much core's) than two A76's using the energy of one. A76 shine only in integer operations that aren't (efficient) used for SMP, as it's 3x the performance of an A55. For 97% of tasks you won't ever need more than two big cores.
QC out of the gate so quickly with an A76? Yes, they realize that there are strong headwinds ahead. One downside of abandoning core customization and just use ARM's stock designs is that it's now a lot more apples-to-apples vs. other fabless competitors. I wonder if QC will try it's hands at a more heavily customized A76 for their next 8X5 flagship. They used to be really good at it.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
Wardrive86 - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
If they can get it in a device with 4GB/64GB, Pie, and a 64 bit kernal in Q1 2019 for $300-350 then they will have a winner. Unfortunately that will probably only happen in China, India etc.serendip - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
A Mi 8 Lite with 6GB/128GB is about $300 and that comes with a 660. No Pie but that's presumably coming soon. I just want Pie, MicroSD, Android One and a 670/675 at $250-300.Roland00Address - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
Android One is more important than any specific Android version for you will get constant Android updates with the Android One program.So Nokia just announced the 6.1 Plus in July and 7.1 in Oct of 2018, which is in these price points that you just requested. These nokia phones uses the Qualcomm 636 (4 cortex a73, 4 cortex a53) so I bet we will see similar phones in a year or so running this new snapdragon 675 with 2 cortex a76 and 6 cortex a55.
It may just not be Q1 2019 but instead a later date.
hanselltc - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link
Indeed very tempting, if only did Nokia copy Apple's -- and Oneplus' slider design.hanselltc - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link
In China they're slapping 845s and presumably 855 in phones for that price thoughInzamam - Saturday, March 2, 2019 - link
Redmi Note 7 pro....For India ..
nicolaim - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
I think there's an error somewhere in the Integrated Modem part of the table.lmcd - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
Midrange chipset with beyond the Cortex A53?I don't see April 1 on my calendar, what gives?
dudedud - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
Any news on a 625/450 successor?An 8 core A55 for the low end?
We had been on the A53 combo for too long...
CuriosUser - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
This is exactly what I was waiting for8x a55 with >4000 mAh, full HD screen and decent camera
djayjp - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
Maybe Janks are a good thing... maybe we want MORE Janks!?!PeachNCream - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
Really though, what is are Janks? Is that like application hesitation or a period of reduced framerate? Even the tiny text at the bottom of the slide doesn't define it and I've never heard the term before. It sounds like a made up work.Ryan Smith - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
"Janky" is typically used to describe sudden leaps in frametimes. Say a frame taking 100ms instead of 16ms.serendip - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
Qualcomm and their ultra-confusing lineup... The 636, 660 and 710 are closely related but the 636 and 660 are getting more design wins. The 710 is probably priced too high and too close to the 845 in terms of performance.I've used Mi 8's with the 660 and 710 chips, I can't tell any difference between them in normal use and the 660 is more than good enough. My old 650 still rocks against a lot of newer chips although power consumption is higher.
tinted - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
For me new chips makes sense because of the new ISP and other things that gets upgraded along with the efficiencyPerformance is also good to have but for my usage that does not make any difference
Dragonstongue - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
those configs are WEIRD ASF.most of this I understand (kind of) but 6 cores at higher clock to chew battery even more and 11nm..totally weird.
Likely because it is Samsung and "claimed" higher performance it will also have a higher price because of such (real world "gain" likely to be at the very most in the range of tops ~2% mixed usage performance at probably an extra 5% battery use) because having a good size battery in these super easy to shatter phones is impossible, but yet they figure out how to make them thinner and thinner.
>:(
so they increase clock rate for the 6 core (600Mhz combined) reduced clock on the 2 core (400mhz combined) reduction in the modem capability by 200Mhz as well....hmmm, it is QC after all, but I do not picture this being "faster" at all, (marketing is very rarely real world accurate)
though some of the 7nm stuff looks VERY promising.
Unless they dropped volts or something that much more on the 6 cores and lost a bit of speed modem wise which helped it "sip power" even more and did some extra fancy trickery to make sure use least amount of power possible while always in maximal performance mode something along those lines.
but seriously 11nm da fook..bad enough everyone is playing with die shrink naming these days, now they are "mix and matching" to confused naming even more...I guess when folks see 10nm it might back fire in their face because "oh this must be older gen, I think I will go to the "smaller" number instead"
Or they are just trying to get each other all "wound up" with their fancy moronic naming game??
They might as well just start calling them by the chip model number and nothing more, it is getting out of hand.
on another note, if they can do really silly chip designs i.e BIG.little that have very little difference in clock speed seemingly to "hurt" performance more then "help" battery life, why not just go way out there and do 2 cores at a high speed, 2 or 4 cores at medium and 2 at low speed so they could ensure highest possible performance at lowest power usage no matter what the device is doing, hell it might "allow" the 2 slowest cores worry about all the background crd so the higher performing cores can worry about the "heavy lifting" or something.
Let us call it BIG.Little.micro design ^.^
Wilco1 - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
Man you've got issues...The first thing you need to try to understand that not all cores are equal. A newer more advanced core will outperform an older core even when running at a significantly lower frequency. So yes, this is definitely much faster than the 710. Also a big core could run at 800MHz and still be faster than a little core at 1.7GHz. And maximum clock frequency as listed is just that. If there is not much work to do the active cores will run at a much lower frequency (to gain power efficiency) and some cores will be switched off.
haukionkannel - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
Most likely 11nm is 14++ version with marketing coating... based on the 14 nm variant info from article.Shekels - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
What the hell have you been smoking... 11nm is the physical size of the transistor. 14++ is still a 14nm transistor. 11nm is much closer to 10nm than 14nm... There is no way the 11nm is 14++ but marketed differently. That would be false informationWilco1 - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
11nm is an improved 14nm process with 10% higher density and 15% better performance. See the link at the bottom of the article: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11877/samsung-detai...Note the nm figure hasn't referred to physical transistor size for more than 10 years now.
levizx - Friday, October 26, 2018 - link
14++ is also an improved 14nm process, only it's about 15% lower density.ajp_anton - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
What exactly is depth map? I thought I knew just based on the name and also the article text, but the example image makes no sense.Ryan Smith - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
A depth map is exactly what it sounds like: the intensity of a pixel correlates to the object's distance from the camera.Most likely the example image is a fake put together by Qualcomm's marketing department for illustrative purposes. Though it could have also been taken by a single camera phone that can't use the parallax effect to directly map distance.
ZolaIII - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
This actually looks like it's ment to be by its wide adopteption rate the successor of S636 and by it's design philosophy of the S650. It's directly aimed against the Mediatek Helio P60 and it's successor series. 11nm LPP is a last Samsungs 14/16 nm renamed node ment to complete against also similar renamed TSMC's 12nm one (upon which the P60 is made), its a cheapest FinFET node which is a good thing. On the other hand A76's on it (even in quantity of only two) won't be efficient which brings me to a conclusion that price will be paid in maximum GPU clock as there is a reason QC is branding it as lower tier A612 even we know it's a same single cluster design as the A615/A616 are. It will probably at least match the A512 performance while being more power efficient. From a design standard point the S675 looks very promising bringing to users only what they really need all do 11nm FinFET have much sense from economic standpoint the GloFo 22nm FD-SOI would have even more sense & additional benefits (price, lower standby power consumption, much lower RF & mixed power consumption) there is still a concern about A76's power consumption on that note. 11nm FinFET is still behind density & efficiency of even first gen of Samsung 10nm FinFET not to mention third one called as 8nm FinFET but that will probably be resolved for S7xx series successors.If the Samsungs 7nm LPP with EUV is in really 20% cheaper than 7nm with DUV that would also make it price competitive to 10nm node which means that there is little to no reason for using earlier FinFET node's counting in addition benefits all do development costs is increase it's not something that large manufacturer like QC can't compensate for.
serendip - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
The key thing about the 650, 636, 660 and 675 are that they're good enough for most tasks. They're not the fastest SoCs but the combo of low price, high CPU and GPU performance and high efficiency make them perfect for the $200-400 market. I'd rather not get something like a Poco F1 with a flagship chip and corners cut everywhere else to meet a low price point.As for Mediatek, their GPU designs are still woeful compared to Adreno. They've been making big strides on power efficiency though.
tinted - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
With pocophone the whole market is Disturbed, 670 and 710 devices are more costly than 845 because of that device, only reason I am excited to have powerful processor is because I can have a powerful ISP which will enable better HDR photography and videography_
Also new architecture with smaller processor size with SAMSUNG LPP vs TSMC process means much more efficient processor
serendip - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
I would prefer a 660 instead of the 845 for power efficiency. I don't game, HDR and slow motion capture work fine on the 660 and it's faster while being more efficient than the legendary 650.jjj - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
This seems like a preemptive move ahead of MTK P70, we'll see if they deliver in Q1 in real vols.PeachNCream - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
It seems like there isn't much seperation between the faster and slower CPU core clusters. Would two Kyro 460 processor cores running at 2.0GHz accessing 256KB L2 be that much less efficient than 6 of the same processor cores running only 200MHz slower with access to 64KB L2? Maybe they could save silicon on the die by just getting more aggressive with clock reductions on the two faster cores and not including ~4 of the smaller CPUs.DanNeely - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
Big cores typically have 2-3x the IPC of small cores (more cache, more pipelines, out of order execution).Having 6 small cores for 8 total is probably a concession to demands from phone makers marketing depts. Some years back Qualcom very publicly denounced the 8x small core designs a few of their competitors were making as stupidly wasting die space and that 2xbig 2xsmall and 2x/4x combos would provide much better bang for the buck in midrange devices and stated they'd never make them. A few weeks later they walked the latter back in the face of OEMs who said they'd buy 8xsmall SoCs from mediatek/allwinner/etc because their marketing depts didn't think they could sell sub 8core phones at anything beyond very bottom tier prices because "consumers are stupid and all they know is that '8 is better than 6 or 4'".
djayjp - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
Though if most applications are written to only take advantage of a max of 4 threads maybe having some spare cpu resources (given such weak cores) isn't such a bad idea. Plus the battery life (and efficiency) of the small cores is much better.Wilco1 - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
And the small cores are ... well, very small, so having a few more of them doesn't cost much area.serendip - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
The big cores are only fired up on app loading and for gaming, so having more efficient little cores makes sense because they're running all the time.ZolaIII - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link
All six A55's use same amount of energy as one A76. In SMP tasks using floating point operations six A55's will be faster (when software can utilise that much core's) than two A76's using the energy of one. A76 shine only in integer operations that aren't (efficient) used for SMP, as it's 3x the performance of an A55. For 97% of tasks you won't ever need more than two big cores.eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
QC out of the gate so quickly with an A76? Yes, they realize that there are strong headwinds ahead. One downside of abandoning core customization and just use ARM's stock designs is that it's now a lot more apples-to-apples vs. other fabless competitors. I wonder if QC will try it's hands at a more heavily customized A76 for their next 8X5 flagship. They used to be really good at it.phoenix_rizzen - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
Slides show the efficiency cluster running at 1.7 GHz. The table shows 1.8 GHz.phoenix_rizzen - Monday, October 29, 2018 - link
Fixed.Javert89 - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link
Since the A76 offers the performance of a 2.8 ghz A75 at only 1.92 ghz.. Then this is the most powerful single-core SoC ever presented by Qualcomm!levizx - Sunday, November 25, 2018 - link
This is a cut-down version, Kirin 980 uses a built-up version.Inzamam - Saturday, March 2, 2019 - link
So Xiaomi Launch Redmi note 7 pro With SD 675 and Sony IMX 586 48 MP sensor along with headphone jack and USB C... 64/4GB for $197.19For India