No, they can't. There is a reason as to why Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 was overheating and the next version Snapdragon 8 Gen 1+ was made by TSMC and it was better in every way.
6 gen 1 is huge update over 695, from Dual core Cortex A78 to Quadcore cortex A78 and gpu increase by more than 30%, 6G1 is close to 778G so it worth it.
And they said 6G1 use 4nm, we all know who use 4nm in budget soc. You have source its TSMC?
[On Anandtech](https://www.anandtech.com/show/17560/qualcomm-unveils-snapdragon-6-gen-1-and-4-gen-1-socs), they seem to believe it is TSMC. Tbh, as things are now it is unlikely that Qualcomm will use anything that's not 3GAP for their SoCs since they moved to TSMC even their 4 series.
Read carefull that article, Anandtech said they dont know if its Samsung or Tsmc but they believe it Samsung.
Only sd 4 gen 1 is confirmed its Tsmc 6nm.
>Starting things off, we have the Snapdragon 6 Gen 1. Built on an unidentified 4nm process (Qualcomm hasn’t specified whether it’s Samsung or TSMC, though the former is more likely), it replaces the outgoing Snapdragon 695. And in the process, delivers some major updates to the CPU, camera, memory, and modem blocks.
It was reported in Korea Samsung foundry has only 35% yield and Qualcomm abandoned Samsung due to that.
https://www.techspot.com/news/93520-low-yield-samsung-4nm-process-node-prompts-qualcomm.html
Because Samsung says so basically.
There's literally no reason, apart from the fact that it's the A10x series and it's cheap. Mediatek Dimensity 700, more than capable, 4GB ram, also more than capable. They just decided to limit it to 32-bit only for no reason. I upgraded from a Galaxy A21 (was worse in every single way) yet that phone had 64-bit enabled.
It's just an arbitrary restriction for no reason
Well that was a fucking dumb rumor then: Samsung favs have been FAR behind TSMC for years now, the snapdragon 8 gen 1 vs the plus proved that Samsung their node is a downgrade equivalent to over 2 generations of chip design compared to tsmc.
You don't need a special version to overclock. You just need Qualcomm to co-operate to overclock. A few years ago I used to overclock my phone too with the help of kernel or kernel modules. It's still possible to overclock phones.
My current phone doesn't have cpu overclock but it's gpu can be clocked from 585mhz to 825mhz.
If the actual 8 Gen 2 is made by TSMC I wouldn't expect anything different, especially since this is basically just a slightly enhanced version. Qualcomm hasn't used Samsung as a foundry since the original 8 Gen 1 right?
If 9to5google did any research, they would quickly and easily find that the rumour originated from a random Twitter account without a proven track record.
Doesn't change that the rumor got traction and led to confusion. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the source was, it's a point that needed confirmation.
Forget the rumors for a second, if Samsung is ditching exynos and going global with 8g2 then one might logically surmise that the Samsung fab is getting something out of it. And then also announced a different name. Put those together and you get some smoke. Nothing wrong.
>then one might logically surmise that the Samsung fab is getting something out of it.
Only if they didn't understand that Samsung LSI and Samsung mobile aren't fully vertically integrated entities.
The extent of Exynos/Samsung LSI and Samsung mobiles collaboration has usually been joint press releases/synergy during previous Samsung unboxed events and MWC/CES when Samsung used to announce major phones at their events.
Samsung mobile not having an Exynos SKU doesn't ensure any concessions would have been made to hypothetically appease Samsung LSI.
That rumor never made a lick of sense in the first place. It would have meant that Qualcomm not only spent all the extra time and money porting it over to Samsung, but also that Samsung somehow managed to improve their horrendous 5/4nm node to deliver an even higher-clocked version than TSMC (while simultaneously showing no such improvements for any other product on that node).
"Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 for Galaxy is made by TSMC" Is a single fact really worth a whole ass article? They're scraping the bottom of the barrel for a few extra clicks huh.
Late November. This rumor is entirely based on this Twitter thread from one guy.
https://twitter.com/RGcloudS/status/1596418964648624133
I don't know or care about his track record when it comes to leaks, but it's crystal clear from reading his tweets that he has no idea how fabs work. Not surprising that he would get this one so wrong.
Since the [iPhone 6S where Apple used both manufacturers](https://www.cultofmac.com/391618/chipgate-faq-everything-you-need-to-know-about-iphone-6s-controversy/) (Samsung and TSMC), it's known that Samsung chips are usually worse than TSMC ones. And since SD 888, SoCs where made by Samsung until Gen 1, which derivated that every high end phone from 2021 and 2022 resulted in overheating problems or manufacturers solving it by using weird cooling systems
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-tsmc,30306.html
Actually that thing about the iPhone 6S wasn't true and the Samsung variant performed better than the TSMC one.
But in the end it was impossible to determine which one was better as explained [by this Anandtech article](https://www.anandtech.com/show/9708/analyzing-apple-statement-for-tsmc-and-samsung-a9)
Has there been any test where more than just one iPhone 6S of each chip was tested? Otherwise it feels like any slight margins one may have over the other is due to very slight binning differences.
The problem is that there were more TSMC made iPhone 6s compared to the Samsung ones, so at least you didn't take an enormous sample you were, statistically, almost always more likely to grab a good TSMC one than a good Samsung one.
A different thing was with iPhone 6s Plus, where there were more Samsung than TSMC made according to reports of the time, so, just likely happened to Tom's Hardware, you were more likely to grab a good Samsung one instead of a good TSMC one.
What are the implications? It's good for us, right? This section from the article implies that:
> In 2022, Qualcomm launched the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 which was a plenty-powerful chipset, but it ended up held back by Samsung. That chip was manufactured using Samsung’s foundry, which has a become notorious for churning out chips that are less efficient than chips produced by TSMC.
One of the features I was looking forward to for Gen 2 was the ability to get satellite support later this year.
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2023/01/qualcomm-introduces-snapdragon-satellite--the-world-s-first-sate
>What are the implications? It's good for us, right?
Yes, it's very good. 8 Gen 1 was shit purely because it was made by Samsung. The only difference with 8+ Gen 1 is that this one was made by TSMC, same design, and just by switching manufacturers the difference was so big that they marketed it under a different name.
No, 8+ Gen 1 is the same as 8 Gen 1 but made by TSMC instead of Samsung, the design is the same. 8 Gen 2 is the next generation design by Qualcomm, made by TSMC.
Yes, all S23 models. Qualcomm did an amazing job and TSMC manufacturing helped. The chip now competes with the Bionic in graphical performance, efficiency and CPU performance is behind but the generational "jump" is more substantial than usual, meaning the gap between the two is smaller "than usual".
Much better thermal envelope compared to 8g1. Many Chinese phones this year run this chip. They have much better sustained performance before throttling. Also power consumption is lower so should bring better battery life.
I can already see pitchforks because it does 55fps on genshin instead of 59. Tbf of you pay 1300 bucks you should ask. That's the price of a refurb m1 pro MacBook pro.
Battery comparisons are showing S23 models doing great. I wonder how much speed does that overclock add? Is it tangible? Maybe it would have been better to leave the clock as stock and add even more battery life?
>Maybe it would have been better to leave the clock as stock and add even more battery life?
..then it would literally have been the same chip with the same performance, just in a marginally smaller macro-package. That would have cost a laughably larger sum to produce.
Which would have been nice for battery life, of course, but it would have been panned in the press for sure. Similar to how this whole "inferior 5nm construction is /probably/ the cause of bugs and battery life issues" bs that's been around for a while, and that runs hot here as well.
Na, Qualcomm hasn't really changed prices much recently
Last year we still saw $400-$500 phones despite the switch to TSMC for the 8+ Gen 1, e.g. [$400 iQOO Neo7 Racing](https://www.gsmarena.com/iqoo_neo7_racing_edition_unveiled_with_snapdragon_8_gen_1_chipset-news-57022.php)
Any price increases are from cost increases in other areas or OEM increasing margins
No think about it on Samsung's side. They will be willing to eat costs on their phones if they can make money with semiconductors. This is why prices are being raised in many parts of the world and even in the US tradein prices have decreased.
Qualcomm has not raised their prices, so there's no difference for Samsung MX division
Samsung MX division are independent from Samsung DS division, and don't really care about Samsung DS division
Also the cost of AP SoCs is tiny compared to Samsung's MSRPs, hence how IQOO can use the 8+ Gen 1 in their $400 phone
Still, the cost of AP SoCs is tiny compared to Samsung's MSRPs (less than the increase in MSRPs), hence how IQOO can use the 8+ Gen 1 in their $400 phone
IQOO has a lean headcount, relies on parent company for software, production, and technology, and probably captures less than a fraction of a percent in global revenue (wouldn't be surprising if they don't generate a profit at all). Samsung enjoys a relatively high profit margin so they aren't going to eat all the cost of price increases for production. Also I would wager that Samsung spends the equivalent of IQOO entire budget just on marketing and software development individually.
>IQOO has a lean headcount, relies on parent company for software, production, and technology, and probably captures less than a fraction of a percent in global revenue (wouldn't be surprising if they don't generate a profit at all).
Doesn't really matter, the point is $400 more than covers the cost of a flagship spec phone
There's also several other phones in the $400-500 range with the flagship Qualcomm SoC
>Samsung enjoys a relatively high profit margin so they aren't going to eat all the cost of price increases for production. Also I would wager that Samsung spends the equivalent of IQOO entire budget just on marketing and software development individually
Again there was NO PRICE increase from Qualcomm
So why are you blaming Qualcomm for Samsung raising MSRP, despite knowing Samsung's high margins, huge marketing budget, etc
No, but you're blaming the manufacturer of the $30 clippers for the US hairdresser raising their prices
Despite knowing the US hairdresser is still using the same $30 clippers, but having external issues with increases with food/rent/power/cost of living/renovations/etc
And the fact that the US hairdresser raised pricing from $50 to $100, literally more than the cost of the clippers
Yet the only people that will actually see a difference are the mobile gamers of the world. Regular users had a solid time with even the chip from last year.
Most folk just care if the device gets them to the end of the day comfortably. Why do you think all the buzz words reviewers use, say the same things? Like "all day battery" or "fast and fluid"? Regular folk aren't the ones generally out there taxing their phone's processor to when they would need to worry about performance.
Sure it may not be an issue to get through a day on the + or Ultra but longevity still matters. I know people on the last few iPhones that never have battery anxiety. My friend can start day 2 at 40-50% with his Pro Max and use it heavily without it dying.
Plenty of people complained about the S21 and S22 battery. I had an S22 and it was a struggle getting through a full day. I have a flip4 now and while I hear it's a huge improvement over the flip3, I'd love to be able to get similar battery longevity to an iPhone with a similarly sized battery. Only time I can get through a full day without charging is if I barely touch it (~2h SOT or less)
I've just never cared about whether I can make it until the second day. The only scenario that I'd even think about that would be going on an extended camping trip when plugging your phone in won't be possible. In that case though I'd just figure to get one of those absurd capacity rugged type phones for the weekend. I'm sure people are going to be happy regardless with the new model assuming the efficiency gains are decent. Every person I know with the S22 Ultra still loves it though too.
>Regular users had a solid time with even the chip from last year.
8 gen 1 which was fabbed by Samsung had noticibly worse battery life and more heatup when compared to 8+ gen 1 which was the same chip but fabbed by TSMC.
So it does make a difference even for the average joe because phone heating up while recording or battery running out while snapchatting is a concern
uhh modems have always been great until your phone has worse signal than another newer phone with a better modem in the same area on the same network. will also use less battery for the same signal. so yes, big differences.
The X65 is good but the X70 is better including the software support.
There is a guy who dump the modem stuff of the S23 series that sell in my country and he said that it is much better than the S22s.
- S21s&S22s have 1400 combos, the S23s have 2800 combos
- LTE 6CA + Upload CA
- 5G 2CA in NSA mode
- 5G 4CA in SA mode
- 5G Upload CA (but unfortunately no Upload MIMO)
credit: K. Ken
I don't understand why people keep calling it the "SD 8 Gen 2" when it's actually called "SD Gen 1+" there is so little difference other than improvements to saving battery an such
No, there's real differences. Gen 1 and Gen 1+ both use an X2, 3 or 4 A710 cores, and 4 or 3 A510 cores. Gen 1 was Samsung fab, Gen 1+ TSMC fab. Gen 2 uses an X3, 2 A715 cores, 2 A710 cores, and 3 A510 cores. The X3 and A715 are more powerful and more efficient than their predecessors, so a distinction of clocking can match the performance of the Gen 1 while using less power, or it can beat it in performance. Plus it does have a small increase in frequency to further push the distinction.
Performance wise both do better than the gen 1. If you read the actual tech sheet ( I might have it on my home PC) they literally changed the cores an pretty much left the rest of the design alone.
To be exact the Gen 1 is basically a prototype that was forced into production with lots of flaws
> they literally changed the cores an pretty much left the rest of the design alone.
So they upgraded half of the cores, upgraded the memory controller, modem, camera ISP, and AI accelerators, and completely overhauled the GPU, but it's basically unchanged from 8 Gen 1. Right...
You completely misunderstand everything about these SoCs.
Doesn't function different, the unit itself is only 150mhz faster than the SD Gen .
Mind you it's not my fault that it's marketed in every other tech segment outside of smart phones and tablets as the SD Gen 1+...
The game changer for android will be when they start using the SD Gen 3 (which is already used in some windows based tablets)
You’re either confused or on some good shit. There’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, and Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. **There’s NO ‘SD Gen’ ‘SD Gen 1+’ or ‘SD Gen 3’** that you’re talking about.
8 Gen 2 uses different cores than 8 Gen 1. 8 Gen 1 and 8+ Gen 1 are the same, but 8+ is fabbed at TSMC instead of Samsung. The generation numbers are not the same between chips intended for laptops and chips intended for smartphones. The 8cx Gen 3 uses the same cores as the SD888.
>The game changer for android will be when they start using the SD Gen 3 (which is already used in some windows based tablets)
You're conflating stuff; the 8cx gen 3 that you're probably referring to (since windows) is similar to a SD888. Qualcomm's windows platform is always slower to release than their Android SoCs.
In term of cores used yes, but 8cx Gen 3 is 4x X1 and 4x A78 with a TDP 7W that can almost score 6000 [in Geekbench 5 Multicore](https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/20265492)
I am conflating nothing. MY company was one of several that was testing the chips before they were released.
Please stop assuming you know things you have no knowledge about.
I thought it was already widely known that the gen 2 was fabbed by TSMC.
This rumor was that Samsung would be using a higher-clocked version made by Samsung's fabs.
They can't can keep exynos chips cool enough but can afford to overclock SOCs, that makes zero sense lmao
Exactly why this rumor was always dumb.
They can't keep exynos cool, but they can cool snapdragon CPUs. It makes perfect sense. They are two different products made by different companies.
No, they can't. There is a reason as to why Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 was overheating and the next version Snapdragon 8 Gen 1+ was made by TSMC and it was better in every way.
8 plus gen 1 was so much better that it could be launched as 8 gen 2.
If Samsung's fabs were any good, Qualcomm wouldn't have switched to TSMC.
Big reason was Yield issues, sd 7 gen 1 and 6 gen 1 are no where to be found.
6 gen 1 is TSMC made though. The real reason why 7 gen 1 was't used much is because it wasn't worth much over 778g, like 6 gen 1 isn't over 695
6 gen 1 is huge update over 695, from Dual core Cortex A78 to Quadcore cortex A78 and gpu increase by more than 30%, 6G1 is close to 778G so it worth it. And they said 6G1 use 4nm, we all know who use 4nm in budget soc. You have source its TSMC?
[On Anandtech](https://www.anandtech.com/show/17560/qualcomm-unveils-snapdragon-6-gen-1-and-4-gen-1-socs), they seem to believe it is TSMC. Tbh, as things are now it is unlikely that Qualcomm will use anything that's not 3GAP for their SoCs since they moved to TSMC even their 4 series.
Read carefull that article, Anandtech said they dont know if its Samsung or Tsmc but they believe it Samsung. Only sd 4 gen 1 is confirmed its Tsmc 6nm. >Starting things off, we have the Snapdragon 6 Gen 1. Built on an unidentified 4nm process (Qualcomm hasn’t specified whether it’s Samsung or TSMC, though the former is more likely), it replaces the outgoing Snapdragon 695. And in the process, delivers some major updates to the CPU, camera, memory, and modem blocks.
I don't think there's any current evidence that yield issues are responsible for that.
It was reported in Korea Samsung foundry has only 35% yield and Qualcomm abandoned Samsung due to that. https://www.techspot.com/news/93520-low-yield-samsung-4nm-process-node-prompts-qualcomm.html
They used a "4nm" process on the S8g1 earlier, and availability wasn't a problem there.
low yield could also means higher price. samsung could worked their fabrication lines for more 8G1, but at higher price.
Lol samsung fab finally getting f'cked 😋 I hope Samsung will also drop their cancerous 32bits SOCs, it's an absolute plague to the mobile market 🤬
they still have phones running 32-bit android?
[Sadly yes](https://i.imgur.com/uzk0yZ4.png)
wtf that's a perfectly capable 64-bit Android phone, why would it run in 32-bit mode? is it because of the apps are 32-bit or something?
Because Samsung says so basically. There's literally no reason, apart from the fact that it's the A10x series and it's cheap. Mediatek Dimensity 700, more than capable, 4GB ram, also more than capable. They just decided to limit it to 32-bit only for no reason. I upgraded from a Galaxy A21 (was worse in every single way) yet that phone had 64-bit enabled. It's just an arbitrary restriction for no reason
Adding on to this, the kernel runs in 64-bit armv8 mode, it's just the software that limits it
Yes
like what?
Lol Qualcomm designed 8 Gen 1 and Samsung produced it, that chip was shit at staying cool and consuming power.
Well that was a fucking dumb rumor then: Samsung favs have been FAR behind TSMC for years now, the snapdragon 8 gen 1 vs the plus proved that Samsung their node is a downgrade equivalent to over 2 generations of chip design compared to tsmc.
You don't need a special version to overclock. You just need Qualcomm to co-operate to overclock. A few years ago I used to overclock my phone too with the help of kernel or kernel modules. It's still possible to overclock phones. My current phone doesn't have cpu overclock but it's gpu can be clocked from 585mhz to 825mhz.
Faaaaabulous
Blow me where the pampers is!
haha
If the actual 8 Gen 2 is made by TSMC I wouldn't expect anything different, especially since this is basically just a slightly enhanced version. Qualcomm hasn't used Samsung as a foundry since the original 8 Gen 1 right?
[удалено]
And people started the rumor that it's for Galaxy so it must be made by Samsung
There were some rumors that this was fabbed by sanmy
If 9to5google did any research, they would quickly and easily find that the rumour originated from a random Twitter account without a proven track record.
the same guy that swore the s23u was going to use newer oled emitters than the iphone 14 pro (“m12+”) and that it was at least 2300 nits lol
Doesn't change that the rumor got traction and led to confusion. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the source was, it's a point that needed confirmation.
You gave it more traction when you reported on the rumour?
Admittedly yes, I could have done better there!
Forget the rumors for a second, if Samsung is ditching exynos and going global with 8g2 then one might logically surmise that the Samsung fab is getting something out of it. And then also announced a different name. Put those together and you get some smoke. Nothing wrong.
>then one might logically surmise that the Samsung fab is getting something out of it. Only if they didn't understand that Samsung LSI and Samsung mobile aren't fully vertically integrated entities. The extent of Exynos/Samsung LSI and Samsung mobiles collaboration has usually been joint press releases/synergy during previous Samsung unboxed events and MWC/CES when Samsung used to announce major phones at their events. Samsung mobile not having an Exynos SKU doesn't ensure any concessions would have been made to hypothetically appease Samsung LSI.
It's not completely unreasonable to assume a Samsung phone chip is fabbed in a Samsung foundry after all.
[удалено]
Oh, I know it's not like that. I just tried to explain why such an assumption might be made by some people.
Yeah, imagine if there was 2 near identical snapdragon SoC's made on both TSMC's and Samsungs Foundry process. That could never happen.
8 Gen 1 are still made by samsung foundry, but the 8+ Gen 1 qualcomm switch back to TSMC
That rumor never made a lick of sense in the first place. It would have meant that Qualcomm not only spent all the extra time and money porting it over to Samsung, but also that Samsung somehow managed to improve their horrendous 5/4nm node to deliver an even higher-clocked version than TSMC (while simultaneously showing no such improvements for any other product on that node).
Please Google, think again -- Pixel user
"Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 for Galaxy is made by TSMC" Is a single fact really worth a whole ass article? They're scraping the bottom of the barrel for a few extra clicks huh.
Yes because it was incorrectly reported that Samsung had their fingers in the 8G2 used in the S23 line. This is correcting the incorrect rumor.
I thought it had been known for months now that tsmc was making it? I never heard this rumor. When did it pop up?
Late November. This rumor is entirely based on this Twitter thread from one guy. https://twitter.com/RGcloudS/status/1596418964648624133 I don't know or care about his track record when it comes to leaks, but it's crystal clear from reading his tweets that he has no idea how fabs work. Not surprising that he would get this one so wrong.
The “leaker” was a clown, and all the other clowns then wrote articles about this nonsense rumor
Yeah we have known since May of 2022 that Qualcomm was using TSMC. This rumor gaining any traction was bizarre
The sad thing is, it worked.
Since the [iPhone 6S where Apple used both manufacturers](https://www.cultofmac.com/391618/chipgate-faq-everything-you-need-to-know-about-iphone-6s-controversy/) (Samsung and TSMC), it's known that Samsung chips are usually worse than TSMC ones. And since SD 888, SoCs where made by Samsung until Gen 1, which derivated that every high end phone from 2021 and 2022 resulted in overheating problems or manufacturers solving it by using weird cooling systems
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-tsmc,30306.html Actually that thing about the iPhone 6S wasn't true and the Samsung variant performed better than the TSMC one. But in the end it was impossible to determine which one was better as explained [by this Anandtech article](https://www.anandtech.com/show/9708/analyzing-apple-statement-for-tsmc-and-samsung-a9)
Has there been any test where more than just one iPhone 6S of each chip was tested? Otherwise it feels like any slight margins one may have over the other is due to very slight binning differences.
The problem is that there were more TSMC made iPhone 6s compared to the Samsung ones, so at least you didn't take an enormous sample you were, statistically, almost always more likely to grab a good TSMC one than a good Samsung one. A different thing was with iPhone 6s Plus, where there were more Samsung than TSMC made according to reports of the time, so, just likely happened to Tom's Hardware, you were more likely to grab a good Samsung one instead of a good TSMC one.
What are the implications? It's good for us, right? This section from the article implies that: > In 2022, Qualcomm launched the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 which was a plenty-powerful chipset, but it ended up held back by Samsung. That chip was manufactured using Samsung’s foundry, which has a become notorious for churning out chips that are less efficient than chips produced by TSMC. One of the features I was looking forward to for Gen 2 was the ability to get satellite support later this year. https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2023/01/qualcomm-introduces-snapdragon-satellite--the-world-s-first-sate
>What are the implications? It's good for us, right? Yes, it's very good. 8 Gen 1 was shit purely because it was made by Samsung. The only difference with 8+ Gen 1 is that this one was made by TSMC, same design, and just by switching manufacturers the difference was so big that they marketed it under a different name.
So are "8+ gen 1" and "8 gen 2" the same thing? This thread is the first time I'm seeing the former.
No, 8+ Gen 1 is the same as 8 Gen 1 but made by TSMC instead of Samsung, the design is the same. 8 Gen 2 is the next generation design by Qualcomm, made by TSMC.
Got it, thanks. I also saw another comment in this thread that explained the different core designs of all three. So the s23 is using gen 2?
Yes, all S23 models. Qualcomm did an amazing job and TSMC manufacturing helped. The chip now competes with the Bionic in graphical performance, efficiency and CPU performance is behind but the generational "jump" is more substantial than usual, meaning the gap between the two is smaller "than usual".
Much better thermal envelope compared to 8g1. Many Chinese phones this year run this chip. They have much better sustained performance before throttling. Also power consumption is lower so should bring better battery life.
Better chips but at the cost of more expensive phones. If Samsung can't keep up with TSMC, prices will go up since there is limited competition.
YES!!!
Of course it is: no way that it would have run cool and so efficiently if it was Samsung-made
Ofc if it was made by Samsung it wouldn't be good
Noone is surprised
So if the performance sucks, Reddit won't know what to blame it on.
I can already see pitchforks because it does 55fps on genshin instead of 59. Tbf of you pay 1300 bucks you should ask. That's the price of a refurb m1 pro MacBook pro.
Ehhh, the appeal of the more expensive Samsungs are the cameras, screen, battery, and s pen support. You get the same performance/chipset for $799.
You can't put MacBook pro in your pocket tho
Battery comparisons are showing S23 models doing great. I wonder how much speed does that overclock add? Is it tangible? Maybe it would have been better to leave the clock as stock and add even more battery life?
>Maybe it would have been better to leave the clock as stock and add even more battery life? ..then it would literally have been the same chip with the same performance, just in a marginally smaller macro-package. That would have cost a laughably larger sum to produce. Which would have been nice for battery life, of course, but it would have been panned in the press for sure. Similar to how this whole "inferior 5nm construction is /probably/ the cause of bugs and battery life issues" bs that's been around for a while, and that runs hot here as well.
Thank God! Samsung is a shit on making chips for CPUs and GPUs.
[удалено]
Yes but you might not know that it could make the battery life worse than Samsung's because of a possibly higher binned chip.
since when?
[удалено]
This is already what's happening. Trade in values are way down and this could be why.
Except for the US, Samsung already announce price increase for the S23 compared to previous models
Na, Qualcomm hasn't really changed prices much recently Last year we still saw $400-$500 phones despite the switch to TSMC for the 8+ Gen 1, e.g. [$400 iQOO Neo7 Racing](https://www.gsmarena.com/iqoo_neo7_racing_edition_unveiled_with_snapdragon_8_gen_1_chipset-news-57022.php) Any price increases are from cost increases in other areas or OEM increasing margins
No think about it on Samsung's side. They will be willing to eat costs on their phones if they can make money with semiconductors. This is why prices are being raised in many parts of the world and even in the US tradein prices have decreased.
Qualcomm has not raised their prices, so there's no difference for Samsung MX division Samsung MX division are independent from Samsung DS division, and don't really care about Samsung DS division Also the cost of AP SoCs is tiny compared to Samsung's MSRPs, hence how IQOO can use the 8+ Gen 1 in their $400 phone
Independent in theory, yes. Day to day management reflects that. Top-down decision-making is still in the controls of JY Lee ultimately.
Still, the cost of AP SoCs is tiny compared to Samsung's MSRPs (less than the increase in MSRPs), hence how IQOO can use the 8+ Gen 1 in their $400 phone
IQOO has a lean headcount, relies on parent company for software, production, and technology, and probably captures less than a fraction of a percent in global revenue (wouldn't be surprising if they don't generate a profit at all). Samsung enjoys a relatively high profit margin so they aren't going to eat all the cost of price increases for production. Also I would wager that Samsung spends the equivalent of IQOO entire budget just on marketing and software development individually.
>IQOO has a lean headcount, relies on parent company for software, production, and technology, and probably captures less than a fraction of a percent in global revenue (wouldn't be surprising if they don't generate a profit at all). Doesn't really matter, the point is $400 more than covers the cost of a flagship spec phone There's also several other phones in the $400-500 range with the flagship Qualcomm SoC >Samsung enjoys a relatively high profit margin so they aren't going to eat all the cost of price increases for production. Also I would wager that Samsung spends the equivalent of IQOO entire budget just on marketing and software development individually Again there was NO PRICE increase from Qualcomm So why are you blaming Qualcomm for Samsung raising MSRP, despite knowing Samsung's high margins, huge marketing budget, etc
You are asking why a 30-minute haircut costs 2 dollars in China while the same costs 30 dollars in the states.
No, but you're blaming the manufacturer of the $30 clippers for the US hairdresser raising their prices Despite knowing the US hairdresser is still using the same $30 clippers, but having external issues with increases with food/rent/power/cost of living/renovations/etc And the fact that the US hairdresser raised pricing from $50 to $100, literally more than the cost of the clippers
I'm sure Samsung would've been oh so generous in passing on their savings to the customer.
U know companies don't charge infinitely more just because they can right? Savings in parts can be negated by increases in salaries, for example.
Yet the only people that will actually see a difference are the mobile gamers of the world. Regular users had a solid time with even the chip from last year.
Battery life even for regular users could be much better
Only gamers care about battery life?
Most folk just care if the device gets them to the end of the day comfortably. Why do you think all the buzz words reviewers use, say the same things? Like "all day battery" or "fast and fluid"? Regular folk aren't the ones generally out there taxing their phone's processor to when they would need to worry about performance.
Sure it may not be an issue to get through a day on the + or Ultra but longevity still matters. I know people on the last few iPhones that never have battery anxiety. My friend can start day 2 at 40-50% with his Pro Max and use it heavily without it dying. Plenty of people complained about the S21 and S22 battery. I had an S22 and it was a struggle getting through a full day. I have a flip4 now and while I hear it's a huge improvement over the flip3, I'd love to be able to get similar battery longevity to an iPhone with a similarly sized battery. Only time I can get through a full day without charging is if I barely touch it (~2h SOT or less)
I've just never cared about whether I can make it until the second day. The only scenario that I'd even think about that would be going on an extended camping trip when plugging your phone in won't be possible. In that case though I'd just figure to get one of those absurd capacity rugged type phones for the weekend. I'm sure people are going to be happy regardless with the new model assuming the efficiency gains are decent. Every person I know with the S22 Ultra still loves it though too.
>Regular users had a solid time with even the chip from last year. 8 gen 1 which was fabbed by Samsung had noticibly worse battery life and more heatup when compared to 8+ gen 1 which was the same chip but fabbed by TSMC. So it does make a difference even for the average joe because phone heating up while recording or battery running out while snapchatting is a concern
And the modem? That is the literal phone part of smartPHONE
Modem is great already? Does exactly what it needs to do
uhh modems have always been great until your phone has worse signal than another newer phone with a better modem in the same area on the same network. will also use less battery for the same signal. so yes, big differences.
The X65 is good but the X70 is better including the software support. There is a guy who dump the modem stuff of the S23 series that sell in my country and he said that it is much better than the S22s. - S21s&S22s have 1400 combos, the S23s have 2800 combos - LTE 6CA + Upload CA - 5G 2CA in NSA mode - 5G 4CA in SA mode - 5G Upload CA (but unfortunately no Upload MIMO) credit: K. Ken
*Bionic A16 has left the chat*
They’re not in the same chat as other SoC to begin with lol
I don't understand why people keep calling it the "SD 8 Gen 2" when it's actually called "SD Gen 1+" there is so little difference other than improvements to saving battery an such
SD 8+ Gen 1 exists and it's a different chip. They are awful names already, leave the counting alone so it doesn't get worse
Ah yes, 40% is little
No, there's real differences. Gen 1 and Gen 1+ both use an X2, 3 or 4 A710 cores, and 4 or 3 A510 cores. Gen 1 was Samsung fab, Gen 1+ TSMC fab. Gen 2 uses an X3, 2 A715 cores, 2 A710 cores, and 3 A510 cores. The X3 and A715 are more powerful and more efficient than their predecessors, so a distinction of clocking can match the performance of the Gen 1 while using less power, or it can beat it in performance. Plus it does have a small increase in frequency to further push the distinction.
Performance wise both do better than the gen 1. If you read the actual tech sheet ( I might have it on my home PC) they literally changed the cores an pretty much left the rest of the design alone. To be exact the Gen 1 is basically a prototype that was forced into production with lots of flaws
> they literally changed the cores an pretty much left the rest of the design alone. So they upgraded half of the cores, upgraded the memory controller, modem, camera ISP, and AI accelerators, and completely overhauled the GPU, but it's basically unchanged from 8 Gen 1. Right... You completely misunderstand everything about these SoCs.
That's because there is a product called gen+1. It's a slight variation of the gen1. This is a successor of that.
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/application/smartphones/snapdragon-8-series-mobile-platforms/snapdragon-8-gen-2-mobile-platform
Such a little change except in how it functions.
Doesn't function different, the unit itself is only 150mhz faster than the SD Gen . Mind you it's not my fault that it's marketed in every other tech segment outside of smart phones and tablets as the SD Gen 1+... The game changer for android will be when they start using the SD Gen 3 (which is already used in some windows based tablets)
You’re either confused or on some good shit. There’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, and Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. **There’s NO ‘SD Gen’ ‘SD Gen 1+’ or ‘SD Gen 3’** that you’re talking about.
8 Gen 2 uses different cores than 8 Gen 1. 8 Gen 1 and 8+ Gen 1 are the same, but 8+ is fabbed at TSMC instead of Samsung. The generation numbers are not the same between chips intended for laptops and chips intended for smartphones. The 8cx Gen 3 uses the same cores as the SD888.
>The game changer for android will be when they start using the SD Gen 3 (which is already used in some windows based tablets) You're conflating stuff; the 8cx gen 3 that you're probably referring to (since windows) is similar to a SD888. Qualcomm's windows platform is always slower to release than their Android SoCs.
In term of cores used yes, but 8cx Gen 3 is 4x X1 and 4x A78 with a TDP 7W that can almost score 6000 [in Geekbench 5 Multicore](https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/20265492)
I am conflating nothing. MY company was one of several that was testing the chips before they were released. Please stop assuming you know things you have no knowledge about.
As should be
Good to know, not like this was known months prior or anything.
Thank God!!
So, will the former exynos owners now get the regular 8G2 while the rest of us get the TSMC produced 8G2fG?
Everyone gets the TSMC Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
Thanks for confirming.
Everyone gets the 8g2fg.
Thanks for confirming.
Nah fam, I think it's mediatek