Engineering sample Snapdragon 8 Gen 1+ benchmarked

[williamcll]

It's still going to be a month and a week before any Snapdragon 8G1+ phones like the Asus ROG phone comes out, but Geekerwan has received and reviewed an engineering sample provided by qualcomm. Before this video, there's only a few benchmark leaks such as This one which indicate a 7% performance improvement

 

 

Remember that this is an engineering sample so results are subject to change

 

Quotes

For starters, all the clocks on the chip has given a 100-200 Mhz bump, courtesy of moving to TSMC's 4NM node:

Geekbench, power draw and processing rating over power: while still a bit behind the A14 in terms of raw power, it (8G1+ is in the middle) actually consumes the least power on full load among all the TSMC made chips.

8G1+ also has the second best graphic performance and a 72.3% stability when running 3D mark over an extended period. It seems to thermal throttle at around 11 minutes of gaming.

My thoughts

The graphics improvement is pretty good, I guess it would be even better once cooling focused phones like the ROG and Red Magic might do even better.

 

Sources

Refer to the video link above.

[Quackers101]

so gen++++? doing an intel thing now? also snapdragon 9 for wifi 7 on 2nm and 6G?

[Commodus]

Pretty much what I expected, provided this is accurate. It's a speed bump that's good for marketing, but not much else. It's somewhat telling that an iPhone 13 from last year should still be faster than the Android phones arriving at the same time as the iPhone 14 line. Or that the iPhone 12 from two years ago is still ahead in some tests.

 

Qualcomm really needs to step up its game for Gen 2. I know Apple has been outrunning Snapdragons for a while, but it's getting a bit ridiculous. It's as if QC is having an "Intel 14nm+++++++" moment where it's having trouble shipping a meaningful technology upgrade.

[Dracarris]

I was wondering why in the text of OP the A14 was mentioned as comparison/baseline, isn‘t that already last gen Apple stuff? Yep.

[Demonking]

And here I am still on the Snapdragon 865 

[ZetZet]

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Qualcomm really needs to step up its game for Gen 2.

But do you actually need more performance in your mobile devices? I have a phone with 765G and I don't see why I would need more performance. 

 

 

All of this seems like marketing to me.

[Commodus]

25 minutes ago, ZetZet said:

But do you actually need more performance in your mobile devices? I have a phone with 765G and I don't see why I would need more performance. 

 

 

All of this seems like marketing to me.

Yes and no. Performance is improving to the point where many common tasks are well-served by mid-range chips like the 765G. I wouldn't point someone to an $800 phone when they might not even notice the differences versus a $400 model.

 

At the same time, we should remember that what seems like overkill now can be useful for must-have features down the road. If you have a powerful AI engine, for example, you can do more with image processing or on-device voice recognition. An example: iOS 16 uses AI to pluck objects out of photos so you can share them elsewhere. And there's always tasks like media editing or gaming. Games like Diablo Immortal and Genshin Impact already push the limits of current phones; there's clearly some room to grow.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, ZetZet said:

But do you actually need more performance in your mobile devices? I have a phone with 765G and I don't see why I would need more performance. 

 

 

All of this seems like marketing to me.

For most people this is ver much true sorta like very few people actually need or would make good use of high end desktop cpus when the most demanding thing they do is likely watching a YouTube video. 

[Spindel]

1 hour ago, ZetZet said:

But do you actually need more performance in your mobile devices? I have a phone with 765G and I don't see why I would need more performance. 

 

 

All of this seems like marketing to me.

You can always look at it like this:

 

Shorter time to complete a task -> less energy usage more battery time

 

Lower frequencies (thus less power draw) to perform a task in the same time as an older generation -> less energy use more battery time

 

of course above statements only hold true if max power draw is the same or lower on the new faster CPU compared to an older.

[Quackers101]

the only good about phone gaming and diablo, is to find a way to get the best graphics for low end hardware. something that has been missing in so many poorly running "AAA" titles. so hopefully we see something that can run better, perform better and look better again. until it's all about having the highest spec and still perform like ***

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, ZetZet said:

But do you actually need more performance in your mobile devices? I have a phone with 765G and I don't see why I would need more performance.

Usually energy efficiency is improved at the same time and that matters A LOT. Check the device lifetime per mAh on current Axx equipped phones vs flagship Snadragons. Ofc iOS optimizations also play a central role here.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Yes and no. Performance is improving to the point where many common tasks are well-served by mid-range chips like the 765G. I wouldn't point someone to an $800 phone when they might not even notice the differences versus a $400 model.

It's been quite a long time since I've used a phone where the performance was genuine usability problem. Currently I have Samsung S10E, provided by work screw actually buying a phone lol, and I have no idea what the SoC in it is and don't care 

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's been quite a long time since I've used a phone where the performance was genuine usability problem. Currently I have Samsung S10E, provided by work screw actually buying a phone lol, and I have no idea what the SoC in it is and don't care 

I kind of feel the iPhone 11 (Apple A13) has reached that point for me where it's performant enough where I'm not really left wanting, while my previous phone with the SD821 definitely ran into some issues (only one browser was really ever smooth on the thing), and got quite hot under extended load. The SD821 was certainly faster than the SD800 device I had before that, but I feel for general usability, the gap between the Apple A13 and SD821 was quite a bit larger than between the SD821 and SD800. The A13 generally feels "effortless" by comparison.

 

(of course, nothing could compare to the monumental leap I took going from a Tegra 2 to the Snapdragon 800 . Don't think I'll see that kind of jump again)

[leadeater]

49 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

SD821

Which phones used this? Legit no idea, I don't follow mobile SoCs at all lol

[williamcll]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Which phones used this? Legit no idea, I don't follow mobile SoCs at all lol

Snapdragon 821, came out in 2016 as a plus version of the snapdragon 820, replaced by the 835 in the following year.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Which phones used this? Legit no idea, I don't follow mobile SoCs at all lol

It's just a clock-bumped SD820. Same lackluster OG Kryo cores.

 

My LeEco Le Pro 3 had it, as does the LG G6, OnePlus 3T and some others. Most notably, the original Google Pixel also had it.

[williamcll]

Updated article to use the youtube video instead, hopefully he does an english dub as well.

[RedRound2]

11 hours ago, ZetZet said:

But do you actually need more performance in your mobile devices? I have a phone with 765G and I don't see why I would need more performance. 

All of this seems like marketing to me.

Performance measurement based on UI fluidity is an outdated concept at this point (If you have UI fluidity issue, its definitely not because of the CPU/GPU these days)

 

These days SoC performance increases the capability of on device ML (ex: the cool background removal feature in iOS 16, on device captions, facial recognition), computational processing of images from camera, etc. It does allow for certain set of features to be possible on phones these days that wouldn't otherwise been possible with a lower spec phone. Sure if all you're going to do is take calls, open your browser occasionally and check your IM app, then you could probably get away easily with a mid range SoC

[Doobeedoo]

We really need to see a more Apple like SoC for Android the Cortex X core series is solid but not the enough jump needed it seems. 

I'm looking forward to see what Nuvia may bring.

[Commodus]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's been quite a long time since I've used a phone where the performance was genuine usability problem. Currently I have Samsung S10E, provided by work screw actually buying a phone lol, and I have no idea what the SoC in it is and don't care 

You still run into limits on occasion with less powerful chips, I've found. The interface might stutter a moment, an app will take much longer to load... and of course, computationally intensive tasks like media editing and games will take a hit. But those won't matter if you aren't using those features, and chips are advancing to the point where even a mid-ranger can be quite fluid.

 

Google is on the right track with the Pixel 6a, on that note — it's using the same SoC as the regular Pixel 6 models, so the phone won't feel weighed down when you push it hard. That and new OS releases should still feel quick.

[williamcll]

GSMArena also got a 8G1+
https://www.gsmarena.com/testing_the_snapdragon_8_gen_1_plus-review-2426p2.php

[Senzelian]

While this is certainly nice to have, it has also been shown that it might be entirely unnecessary for the consumer. 

 

Google has shown with Tensor that even an aging CPU and GPU design do not necessarily matter in an everyday use case. Google's been pushing AI accelerators forward and they're trying to offload a lot of the processes that you'd encounter today on to them.

 

I think this is the right way to go and will eventually overtake Apple's CPUs in the future - even the M1. (or M2… )

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

Google has shown with Tensor that even an aging CPU and GPU design do not necessarily matter in an everyday use case. Google's been pushing AI accelerators forward and they're trying to offload a lot of the processes that you'd encounter today on to them.

 

I think this is the right way to go and will eventually overtake Apple's CPUs in the future - even the M1. (or M2… )

Eh? Apples A and M class SoCs have NPUs in them for this very thing....

 

Far as I know Apple's NPU is faster than Googles TPU in mobile SoCs and I don't see them jumping ahead either. Googles bigger focus in on high power TPUs for servers for their own datacenter usage.

 

Edit:

Quote

Starting with AI performance, the A15 Bionic features a 16-core NPU, which gets 15.8 TOPs compared to the 11 TOPs of the A14 Bionic, which represents a 44 percent improvement.

https://blazetrends.com/apple-a15-bionic-vs-a14-bionic-what-is-the-performance-improvement/

 

Quote

This is quite interesting as signals that the block is related to the ASIC “Edge TPU” that Google had announced back in 2018. The discrete chip had been advertised at 4 TOPs of processing power in 2 Watts of power, and while Google doesn’t advertise any performance metrics on the TPU inside the Tensor, there are entries showcasing the block goes up to 5W of power.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/17032/tensor-soc-performance-efficiency

 

Yea, based on this Googles wayyyyyy behind.

[Senzelian]

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

Eh? Apples A and M class SoCs have NPUs in them for this very thing....

What was your point?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

What was your point?

Well what was yours? You claimed Google was doing something different right? Something others are not doing and that would lead to Google surpassing Apple? If so then it's no on every count and Apple is ahead of Google.

 

Apple NPU = Google TPU, they are literally the same thing for the same functions and tasks.

 

How can they "eventually overtake Apple" when Apple was doing it first, better, faster, more efficiently? How is Google supposed to get ahead when they are behind and not demonstrating that they are developing at a faster pace.

 

Car A going 10 KM/h that is 1 KM behind car B going 15 KM/h is never going to catch car B.