WTR3925

There are a few things that are important when talking about a transceiver. To recap, transceivers have a few key elements. On the receive side, we see the need for low noise amplifiers, down-converters, and narrow-band amplifiers. On the transmit side, we need a driver amplifier, up-converter, and another set of narrow-band amplifiers. While most of RF360 is built on relatively old process nodes for CMOS technology, the transceiver can be built on newer CMOS processes because it’s doesn’t have to handle the level of signal that the rest of the front end does.

At a high level, the WTR3925 really brings two new capabilities to the table. First, it does away with the need for a companion transceiver in order to achieve carrier aggregation, which the WTR1625L/WFR1620 combination provided. It seems that this is due to the need for additional ports on the transceiver, which the WTR1625L lacked. The other improvement is that WTR3925 moves to a new 28nm RF process, as opposed to the 65nm RF process used for the WTR1625L.

As a quick aside, RF processes are largely similar to CMOS processes, although with a few modifications. These changes can be thicker metal in interconnects between transistors and memcaps, which are analogous to capacitors in DRAM. Qualcomm claims that this will drive down power consumption, however this is a product of a new architecture that takes advantage of the smaller process node. Unlike digital logic such as what we see on the baseband, RF does not directly benefit from scaling to lower processes. In fact, there is a chance that scaling to lower process nodes can hurt power consumption because even though the transistor can operate faster, there is more noise As a result of this noise, the amplifiers in the transceivers may need more stages and more power in order to achieve the same noise figure.

MDM9x35

While baseband was previously one of the most popular topics in RF, as can be seen by this article RF is much more than just the baseband. However, the baseband is a critical part of the chain. The RF front end is critical for reception and a myriad of other issues, but feature support and control of the front-end lies with the baseband. The baseband must properly interpret the information that the front-end provides and also send out information to the front-end to transmit.

Fortunately, the baseband is implemented with digital logic, so there are significant benefits to moving to the latest and greatest CMOS process node. Lower voltage (and therefore power) is needed to drive the transistors, and it becomes easier to drive higher performance in the DSP. In the case of the MDM9x35, we see that there's a QDSP clocked at 800 MHz for modem functions, and a 1.2 GHz Cortex A7 for functions such as mobile hotspot.

In the case of MDM9x35, there are two major contributors to the reduction in power consumption. The first is the move from 28nm HPm to 20nm SoC. While 20nm SoC doesn’t utilize FinFET, we still see scaling in power, performance, and density. The other area where we see power savings is better implementation of various algorithms. As a result, we should see around 20-25% power savings with the same workload.

MDM9x45

In the time since the first MDM9x35 devices were launched, Qualcomm has also iterated on modems. With the 9x45 generation, we see a move to category 10 LTE, which includes 450 Mbps maximum download speed when aggregating three 20 MHz carriers, and two 20 MHz carriers on the uplink for a maximum of 100 Mbps. Although the Snapdragon 810 doesn't have a 9x45 IP block for the modem, the Snapdragon 810 does support up a maximum of 450 Mbps for download with category 9 LTE. However, there is no uplink carrier aggregation in such a scenario. Uplink carrier aggregation is only possible with category 7, which limits downlink speeds to 300 Mbps.

Qualcomm claims that the MDM9x45 should bring around 40% energy savings in an LTE carrier aggregation scenario when compared to the MDM9x25 modem. In addition, these new modems bring in a new generation of GNSS location, with support for EU's Galileo constellation. It's likely that the DSPs and other aspects of this modem have been beefed up relative to the 9x35 and 8994 modems to enable category 10 data rates.

RF: Antenna Tuner, CMOS PA/Switch Qualcomm's Energy Aware Scheduler
Comments Locked

119 Comments

View All Comments

  • phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    Asus ZenPhone 2 uses an Intel chipset.

    There's a couple of other ones as well.
  • blanarahul - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    It's probably at Snapdragon 800 level. Intel won't compete with S810 and best Exynos' of the world until Airmont.... Well, atleast I hope so. *sigh*
  • serendip - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link

    Intel on Android also has problems with app compatibility and speed, despite Intel's assurances to the contrary. Apps with ARM-compiled native code
  • serendip - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link

    Apps with ARM-compiled native code either don't run or run slowly under the code translator. It's almost like Intel is giving away these phone and tablet Atom SOCs to get a foot in the mobile market. I'm quite happy with my cheap Windows 8.1 tablet but Android on Intel has a way a to go yet.

    (the lack of comment editing isn't fun, especially when the Submit Comment button is so easy to click)
  • phoenix_rizzen - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link

    That's for (mainly) games developed using the Android NDK, correct? Doesn't the switch to the Android RunTime (ART) and pre-compiling the apps at install time mitigate this? Or does ART not apply to NDK apps?
  • jjj - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    Look at the phrasing from 2 articles at just a few days distance
    in this one - Thanks in large part to the new cryptographical capabilities of the ARMv8 cores, Snapdragon 810 gets off to a very good start in Geekbench 3's integer benchmarks ....Snapdragon 810's overall performance improvement here is a rather large 45%, though if we throw out the especially large gains that come from Lua MT, the overall performance advantage is closer to 30%.
    and from the Note 4 - GeekBench's integer benchmarks paint a similar picture - if we disregard the huge boost to the cryptography scores we see an average advantage of 31% for the Exynos 5433's A57 cores, or 29% when we normalize for clock speeds.

    So for the Note they clearly point out and discard the encryption gains and they normalize for clocks. That's good and fair and the proper way to look at it. (although quantifying the importnace of the encryption gains would be a plus).
    Here not only encryption is left alone but clocks are not even mention, some readers might not be even aware that there is a clock difference.
    The tone and objectivity are fundamentally different, a nice review for the Note while here it's all about easing concerns and making SD810 look good.
  • Sushisamurai - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    +1. It's not unethical, because it's on a reference platform that Qualcomm is sourcing out. It'd be "unethical" (your terms, not mine - I would use the word disappointing) if they didn't give investigate throttling and power for actual, retail/shipping devices. But I haven't been disappointed yet so....
  • gonchuki - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link

    2015 was already going to be a good skip year with flagships already going full retard at 6'' in late 2014 and already gimping the specs of 5'' phones just to increase the sales of their higher margin phablets.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    I added the clocks for the CPU, apologies the article was still being edited when published.

    As for power and thermals, we have no way to test these until we get a shipping review device with the SoC. Josh had only a couple of hours on hand with the MDP, making more extensive testing not possible. Calling that unethical is pretty harsh.
  • warreo - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    Andrei, power and thermals aside, I notice you didn't address why there was not a greater focus on Exynos vs. S810? At bare minimum, you should include the % difference in the table in addition to the difference vs. S805. The absence of any kind of discussion there makes it easy for people to cry unethical, NOT the absence of power and thermals, which as you said, was due to lack of testing time.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now