Snapdragon 855 Geekbench results appeared, huge gain in single core performance

[Bouzoo]

As usual with Geekbench, not a lot to say, a simple picture says at all. 

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9684512

 

To compare SC / MC:

SD 845 - 2425 / 8909

SD 855 - 3697 / 10469

Exynos 9810 - 3356 / 8670

A11 Bionic (iPhone 8/X) - 4219 / 10174

A10 Fusion (iPhone 7) - 3437 / 5782

 

As you can see, these are pretty significant gains, much higher than 845 compared to 835. We're talking 50% in SC performance alone. We're in iPhone territory now, even above them in MC. Until new iPhones launch that is. 

As with 845, I assume we'll get even higher numbers with actual devices. What do you think?

 

EDIT: There is no source quote since I took the picture directly from their site.

 

[ScratchCat]

After the power consumption numbers come out we shall see. For all we know this is running with a 10W TDP for 2 in 1s.

 

The M3 cores from Samsung reached these values but at the cost of die space and excessive power consumption. 

[Bouzoo]

5 minutes ago, ScratchCat said:

After the power consumption numbers come out we shall see. For all we know this is running with a 10W TDP for 2 in 1s.

 

The M3 cores from Samsung reached these values but at the cost of die space and excessive power consumption. 

That is true. But we'll see, SD 845 was in MC higher than Exynos with lower power consumption. Also SD 855 is confirmed 7 nm so I expect better power efficiency than 845. 

[Commodus]

Assuming these are accurate, there's one big problem: this isn't what the Snapdragon 855 will be competing against.

 

Apple is days away from introducing new iPhones that are likely to use some of the first shipping 7nm mobile processors.  Given that the A12 is virtually guaranteed to be faster, that really doesn't look good for the 855.  Congratulations, Qualcomm, you're finally competitive with Apple circa 2017.  (I know Geekbench isn't the be-all and end-all of testing, but it's what many people will use.)

[Trixanity]

Apparently the geekbench version used is outdated and the score is therefore wrong.

[Tech Enthusiast]

As if a faster CPU is of any use for a smartphone today.

 

Make it use less power, make it smaller and replace it with more batteries,... who cares about smartphone speeds nowadays? Hell, even 200$ phones are faster than needed.

[Bouzoo]

4 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

As if a faster CPU is of any use for a smartphone today.

 

Make it use less power, make it smaller and replace it with more batteries,... who cares about smartphone speeds nowadays? Hell, even 200$ phones are faster than needed.

I disagree. It all depends on what your'e doing. For most stuff it is more than enough, no arguing there, but for other stuff, like using GCam with HDR+ on highest pixel count and slowest exposure on SD 835... what I'd give for something faster. And I do take a lot of pictures with my phone. Gimme all power that you have. And Google is about to launch something even more demanding and better than HDR+. This is just 1 example. There is no reason not to go for performance. Something will use it. 

And I don't, but many do play games on phones. So there is that as well. 

[Trixanity]

5 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

I disagree. It all depends on what your'e doing. For most stuff it is more than enough, no arguing there, but for other stuff, like using GCam with HDR+ on highest pixel count and slowest exposure on SD 835... what I'd give for something faster. And I do take a lot of pictures with my phone. Gimme all power that you have. And Google is about to launch something even more demanding and better than HDR+. This is just 1 example. There is no reason not to go for performance. Something will use it. 

And I don't, but many do play games on phones. So there is that as well. 

Don't need CPU power for that though. It's all hardware accelerated.

[Guest]

Finally something that can run TouchWiz

[bleedblue]

DID SOMEONE SAY SEVEN NANOMETERS

[Belgarathian]

Welcome to 2016, Qualcomm! 

[DrMacintosh]

The A12 is rumored to provide roughly a 30-40% performance bump over the A11 Fusion.....so.....assuming these numbers are true....the 855 already lost. 

[Arika]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

The A12 is rumored to provide roughly a 30-40% performance bump over the A11 Fusion.....so.....assuming these numbers are true....the 855 already lost. 

yes, we know apples processors are better. It's just a shame their are tired to Apple's hardware.

 

i would buy a new android tablet so fast if it had apple's processors.

[Drak3]

Just now, Arika S said:

we know apples processors are better

No we don't. We know that under Geekbench, Apple's procs perform better under iOS than Snapdragon and Exynos do under Android. Until we run iOS on SD or Exynos chips, Android on A11 chips, or some third party ARM compaitble OS on both, we cannot be certain that A series SoCs themselves are actually better.

[Arika]

Just now, Drak3 said:

No we don't. We know that under Geekbench, Apple's procs perform better under iOS than Snapdragon and Exynos do under Android. Until we run iOS on SD or Exynos chips, Android on A11 chips, or some third party ARM compaitble OS on both, we cannot be certain that A series SoCs themselves are actually better.

true enough

[abazigal]

42 minutes ago, Arika S said:

yes, we know apples processors are better. It's just a shame their are tired to Apple's hardware.

 

i would buy a new android tablet so fast if it had apple's processors.

To be fair, Apple's processors are tuned to their own software. 

 

Not sure if we will see similar performance if they had to run Android, much less Touchwiz. 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

As if a faster CPU is of any use for a smartphone today.

 

Make it use less power, make it smaller and replace it with more batteries,... who cares about smartphone speeds nowadays? Hell, even 200$ phones are faster than needed.

Did you know that back in 2000, people said desktop computers were fast enough and that the introduction of the 1Ghz single core processor was unnecessary?

 

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The A12 is rumored to provide roughly a 30-40% performance bump over the A11 Fusion.....so.....assuming these numbers are true....the 855 already lost. 

Qualcomm is not competing against Apple though, so they haven't really lost.

Qualcomm is competing against Samsung, MediaTek and HiSilicon.

 

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

No we don't. We know that under Geekbench, Apple's procs perform better under iOS than Snapdragon and Exynos do under Android. Until we run iOS on SD or Exynos chips, Android on A11 chips, or some third party ARM compaitble OS on both, we cannot be certain that A series SoCs themselves are actually better.

We can be 99.9% sure just by looking at the architectures we know about, look at generational improvements and other variables like that.

Besides, iOS is not magic. People think optimization is some kind of black sorcery which can lift performance of certain operations tremendously. It can't.

 

5 hours ago, abazigal said:

To be fair, Apple's processors are tuned to their own software. 

[Citation Needed]

In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that there is not only 0 evidence for this claim, but there is evidence to support the opposite.

[Bouzoo]

10 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Don't need CPU power for that though. It's all hardware accelerated.

Spent an hour going through all info there was on 835 and yes, it's all Hexagon DSP accelerated, can't argue. 

[Bouzoo]

10 hours ago, Commodus said:

Assuming these are accurate, there's one big problem: this isn't what the Snapdragon 855 will be competing against.

 

Apple is days away from introducing new iPhones that are likely to use some of the first shipping 7nm mobile processors.  Given that the A12 is virtually guaranteed to be faster, that really doesn't look good for the 855.  Congratulations, Qualcomm, you're finally competitive with Apple circa 2017.  (I know Geekbench isn't the be-all and end-all of testing, but it's what many people will use.)

I've mentioned in the OP. QC was always behind Apple when it came to SoCs so this is nothing new. Since the dawn of time Apple has had the fastest chips in mobile devices. However, in the last 2 years or so, we've seen the difference reduce more than ever. We'll see. 

[FloRolf]

Great news for the people who only use their phones to run geekbench all day long. 

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Bouzoo said:

I've mentioned in the OP. QC was always behind Apple when it came to SoCs so this is nothing new. Since the dawn of time Apple has had the fastest chips in mobile devices. However, in the last 2 years or so, we've seen the difference reduce more than ever. We'll see. 

CPU performance has become less relevant in general. That's why Qualcomm has abandoned the idea of making custom cores and follow ARM's roadmap instead. They don't have to compete with those who design custom cores either as their markets hardly overlap.

 

Also, most tasks that require a lot of processing power is accelerated by other parts of the SoC now. That's why Qualcomm has shifted their business to making the overall best SoC rather than the best CPU.

 

So ultimately the reason Qualcomm is improving rapidly in the CPU department is because ARM seems intent on boosting performance faster than they have before; seemingly to compete with Intel for the low power laptop market in the coming years. Since Intel still has the performance crown that goal will eventually help the deficit with Apple even though (as I said before) they don't actually compete.

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Did you know that back in 2000, people said desktop computers were fast enough and that the introduction of the 1Ghz single core processor was unnecessary?

 

Yes, I am aware of that.

I am not aware of anything relevant to a phone that is performance strained right now tho.

I doubt people doing serious gaming on a freaking phone are a real market that is worth catering to. And even if so, just sell gaming phones and don't make the broad masses suffer the downsides.

[DrMacintosh]

4 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Yes, I am aware of that.

 

4 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

am not aware of anything relevant to a phone that is performance strained right now tho.

So you are not aware of that. 

[Tech Enthusiast]

6 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

 

So you are not aware of that. 

You love to spin comments out of context, eh?

I am aware of what people said about 1ghz processors a decade ago.

I am not aware of any useful things you can do on a phone that are performance constained.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

So you are not aware of that. 

Two different context's. 

4 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Yes, I am aware of that.

I am not aware of anything relevant to a phone that is performance strained right now tho.

I doubt people doing serious gaming on a freaking phone are a real market that is worth catering to. And even if so, just sell gaming phones and don't make the broad masses suffer the downsides.

I agree. Unlike desktops and laptops, they are production devices. Phones are media consumption. There is a point where throwing a more and more powerful chip is not going to gain much in performance. 

 

I am not saying its not a good thing because it is. But it does affect cost. 

 

I havent seen anyone in public game the way these phone are marketed, hell havent seen anyone other than 5 year olds game on phones. Even so, games are meant to run on flagships to walmart specials.