POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

Back to Article

  • peevee - Monday, May 08, 2017 - link

    "data from both cameras to produce bokeh effects"

    "Bokeh" is QUALITY of background blur, not background blur itself. What you actually wanted to write is "digitally simulate background blur".
    Reply
  • amdwilliam1985 - Monday, May 08, 2017 - link

    These mid range SoC are getting better and better every generation, they should be more than enough for the generation population.
    Good enough hardware + decent software = good quality lower price phone for everyone, lol
    Reply
  • serendip - Monday, May 08, 2017 - link

    The A53+A72 combo on the 650 and 652 made them punch well above their weight for most tasks while still getting very good efficiency. I thought the octa A53 designs were hampered by the A53 being a slow chip in general, no matter how high they're clocked. It's good to see A53+A73 back in action, these new chips could almost equal flagship performance while being much cheaper and more efficient.

    Unless you're gaming on 4k displays, the fancy stuff in the 835 is overkill for most users. Mainly they're for phone/phallic envy and bragging rights.
    Reply
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    It's time to move away from A53s in all but the lowest end chips. A73/A35 should be the standard for Big.little Reply
  • lmcd - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    A boy can dream. A35 has literally gone untouched for no apparent reason. Reply
  • bug77 - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    They also seem to be as rare as hen's teeth, because smartphones using 600 series chipsets are very hard to come by.
    I don't know whether this is because of production issues or because manufacturers mostly care about high and low end, but that's how it is.
    Reply
  • Saihtam - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Yeah it's kind of weird.

    Because the SoC was actually the most expensive component at $62 when it comes to the Galaxy S7 for example: http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/galaxy-s7-pa...$255-ihs-reveals/a/d-id/1324677
    Reply
  • UtilityMax - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    Actually, up to now there were decent 600 series chipsets (like 650-652 or 625), and really crappy ones, such as the SD 617. The really crappy ones are the ones that used eight A53 cores build on 28nm process. By most measures their performance was mediocre. Now in the USA the smartphone market situation is indeed weird in the sense that most smartphone either use the top of the line high end chips, or the manufacturers go for the cheapest crappiest SoC like 617. What truly lacked in the US smartphone market was a true midrange. Thankfully, recently the arrival of Moto G5 Plus (using SD625) and Huawei Honor 6X (using a similar architecture) might have started changing things. Reply
  • lmcd - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    625 is at best a clocked-up 617. The 50+ seem to get actual big.LITTLE, while the sub 50 get 8 x 2012-era cores.

    My dad recently needed a smartphone and got what (at the time) was one of the best cheap unlocked phones for Verizon, the G4. I recently compared the benchmarks it alongside my other devices using AnTuTu. The G4 sat around just barely double my old Samsung Galaxy S3, which I upgraded to Nougat using a Lineage nightly. My Shield K1 tablet got double the G4 score, and my current phone, a Windows Alcatel Idol 4S, despite its unoptimized beta benchmark, got about triple the G4's score.

    For reference, the Idol 4S cost $400 unlocked and has superior screen resolution, screen color reproduction, build quality, cameras, battery life, battery size, NAND quality, and NAND capacity. I guess you could say its OS is a weakness, but that misses the point: phones using the < 650 series simply fall off the value curve way too hard, and smartphone makers and smartphone chipmakers need to get their act together and fix it or else the market will fall a lot harder than the PC market did.
    Reply
  • WJMazepas - Monday, May 08, 2017 - link

    I would love a 4.7 ou 5 inch phone with a 660 and 3GB of RAM would be more than enough.
    Also, with that Remix Singularity to be used as a Desktop when in need.
    It would be a really good phone and problably not too much expense
    Reply
  • nirolf - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    This.

    I don't get it why manufacturers don't have a serious competitor for the non-Plus Iphone. There's no 4.7 inch phone with decent performance in the Android world. That's baffling to me, I'd buy it in a second.
    Reply
  • eddman - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    Maybe these two:

    http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_x-7948.php
    http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_x_compact-8292...
    Reply
  • Valis - Thursday, May 11, 2017 - link

    That first one is a 5", you can get a 5" with 625 and 4100 mAh battery on Aliexpress for half of what the Sony costs.

    There are only a few 4.5 - 4.8" phones with good res and mid-range hardware, since 2015/2016. If I do a search I find only these on GSMArena.

    http://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2016...

    About 3 of them are decent, but overpriced and has a glass back. No variety at all. :-/
    Reply
  • eddman - Thursday, May 11, 2017 - link

    I thought we were talking about decent mid-range chips. 625 is an A53 chip. The sonys I listed use the A72 based 650. Still not as fast as an iphone but also cheaper.

    The search link you posted already lists my mentioned X compact. The other three use A53 chips (excluding the iphone).
    Reply
  • Valis - Thursday, May 11, 2017 - link

    I wasn't really talking about the chip, they all have some type of mid-range SoC, but as one can see there's like 3-5 under 5" at any cost, from ANY brand.

    Only one that fits the bill, with some shortcomings is the Galaxy A3 (2017), but that one is expensive and has a Samsug Exynos SoC. It's small and 4.7" though, but with a glass back.
    Reply
  • eddman - Thursday, May 11, 2017 - link

    What do you mean A3 is the only one?! Xperia X compact has 1GB more ram (3 GB), twice the storage (32 GB), better camera, and a 2*A72 + 4*A53 processor (vs. 8*A53), which makes it a decent amount faster. It fits the bill far better.

    Again, even though it's not as fast as an iphone, it's quite cheaper. Right now you can get one for $315 on amazon (was $400). The cheapest iphone 7 is $650, and cheapest iphone 6s is $550.
    Reply
  • serendip - Monday, May 08, 2017 - link

    I'm more interested in the efficiency improvements to the LTE modem and the GPU. Even 100 mbit LTE is pointless when mobile data quotas are so low - a gigabit LTE modem at full speed would burn through my monthly quota in a few seconds. Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    The LTE peak PHY rate is a utterly worthless spec: Even if you have an unlimited data quota, you will be lucky to hit 50mbps in real world life. Most people do have data caps which makes it more moot than ever.

    Anyway the SD650 in my Mi Max is awesome SoC, I suspect the only reason why there are so little design wins with the 650/652 because OEMs feel it performs too close to comfort to their S820 flagship phones.
    Reply
  • serendip - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Hey, another Mi Max user :) I was using a Redmi Note 3 previously, also with the SD650, and I absolutely love this processor. It's fast and efficient at stock settings, decently fast and crazy efficient with some tweaks. 11-12 hour screen on time ratings are possible on the Mi Max.

    Yeah, I guess the 65x processors offer 80% of flagship performance at less than half the cost. There's no point getting a Mi 5 with an SD820 when a Redmi Note 3 costs less than half.
    Reply
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    I really don't see the point of ever-higher LTE numbers, or why there's interest in them. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Peak performance helps responsivity. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    That's latency, not throughput. Reply
  • sherifhanna - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    This is Sherif from Qualcomm.

    There's a direct relationship between increase in peak rates and the corresponding increase in real world speeds. Watch this if you're interested in learning more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyLL8BO-HRg
    Reply
  • Skywax9016 - Monday, May 08, 2017 - link

    Kinda sad that Qualcomm maintains in using A53 cores for the 630. I was hoping they could use slower clocked Kyro 260 or something like that. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    I suspect it's because the A53 has the best performance/power ratio. Other chips are more powerful (A72 and A73) but use disproportionately more power (on the same manufacturing process); others are more efficient (A35) but are slower.

    Why ARM hasn't updated it is a bit of a mystery. As it's their oldest 64-bit chip now, perhaps they'll replace it soon.
    Reply
  • LiverpoolFC5903 - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    To be fair, A53 cores clocked at 2.2-2.5 are more than adequate for a vast majority of CPU related tasks. At 10nm, you could even get away with 2.5-3.0 Ghz for A53 cores, which should give it a single threaded performance close to a Cortex A57, which is pretty good for the midrange. Reply
  • UtilityMax - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    Looking at Geekbench scores, A53 cores built on 14nm process (like SD625) are on the same level of performance as SD800. (Yes, SD800 is old, but its level of performance is adequate for a cheap smartphone today). Reply
  • Suraj tiwari - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    @ LiverpoolFC5903
    What about OoO execution and better branch predictor. No matter how much higher you clock the A53, it will still be behind, if compared to bigger (A57, A72, A73) cores...
    Reply
  • LiverpoolFC5903 - Friday, May 12, 2017 - link

    The Geekbench scores, arent they inclusive of these things? Reply
  • UtilityMax - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    A53 is not that bad when it's built on 14nm process. The smartphones using the 625 (built in the same architecture) have certainly punched above their height in terms of performance while having very good battery life (e.g. Moto Z Play). I wouldn't really mind a 630 in my smartphone. The crappy A53 cores were the ones built on the 28nm process. Reply
  • Suraj tiwari - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    I don't think snapdragon 660 incorporate a A73 processor, i think it's still A72 and A53. Reply
  • Lodix - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    There is no point in using A72 over A73 because the new architecture is smaller/cheaper. Reply
  • Suraj tiwari - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    @ Lodix

    A73 is not cheaper, it just takes up less silicon die space than A72 core, so it reduces the 'SOC manufacturer' cost but a Licensee has to pay more on every A73 core produced or modified vs A72 core, as A73 is a newer core.

    Why I am saying that it is still A72 and A53 is because- snapdragon 660 only provide 20% improvement in cpu performance compared to 653, given that it has transitioned from HPM to FinFet, 28nm to 14nm, ARM A72 to custom core 'kryo 260', It should give 20% performance improvement, if based on A72 core, and at least 30% increase in performance, if based on A73 core.

    ( Note: A73 core provide upto 15% increase in performance when implemented on same process node and upto 30% improvement in performance when implemented on 10nm process node as compared to an A72 core ).
    Reply
  • LiverpoolFC5903 - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    Where did you get this information from? From what I recall, the A73 is barely ~10% faster than the A72 overall at the same process node and clock speed, and actually slower in many tasks. Reply
  • Suraj tiwari - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    @LiverpoolFC5903
    10% in general performance + 5% in SIMD Multimedia operations = 15%
    Here is the link of the site-http://www.androidauthority.com/arm-cortex-a73-gar...

    I have read, probably ( i am not sure), that A73 is better than A72 in integer operations but perform worse in floating-point operations. You have said A73 is slower in many tasks, can you elaborate?
    Reply
  • Matt Humrick - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    I've already proven that the big semi-custom cores in Kryo 2xx are based on the Cortex-A73: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11201/qualcomm-snapd... Reply
  • Suraj tiwari - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    Matt Humrick
    Yeah, i just browsed that URL and it was about snapdragon 835 and its 'kryo 280' core but i am talking about snapdragon 660 and its 'kryo 260' core. Did you test this one ('kryo 260' core)? If 'kryo 280' is based on A73 core, it does not mean that all 'kryo 2xx' will be based on A73 core as well. If it is really based on A73 core, then why 'only 20%' performance improvement in cpu as compared to snapdragon 653, given that it has transitioned from HPM to FinFet, 28nm to 14nm, ARM A72 to custom core 'kryo 260'. Will you test 'kryo 260' in coming days?
    Reply
  • zodiacfml - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Interesting but I expect manufacturers utilize the SD660 then price these phones at flagship prices Reply
  • serendip - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Xiaomi and smaller Chinese brands used the 65x in their midrange devices that could have cannibalized flagship sales. Only Samsung charged premium prices for a midrange 650 on their Galaxy A9 Pro. Reply
  • zodiacfml - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Interesting but I expect manufacturers utilize the SD660 then price these phones at flagship prices Reply
  • aryonoco - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Looking forward to the Nokia 7 and Nokia 8, which rumour has it will use this Snapdragon 660. Reply
  • Thorstenn - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Seriously, where are all the socs with cortex a35? Has anyone heard anything besides the deca core mediatek? Maybe it didnt turn out so good. Snapdragon 630 with 4x a35 and 4x a53 would be awesome. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    It would be very slow. Reply
  • serendip - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Indeed. The A35 is for really low end stuff whereas the A53 is a midrange general purpose design. A53+A73 is the best midrange design so far, with the efficient A53 cluster doing most of the work while the A73 cluster is used for short, fast bursts like for loading apps and laying out web pages. Reply
  • vladx - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    From it's codename alone, you can see that A53 is better than the Cortex A35 which has 70-80% of A53's performance at half the power consumption. Reply
  • vladx - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    So basically Cortex A35 is the Cortex A7 replacement for the low to low mid market. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Yep. I really hope ARM can push out something with A35 efficiency at A53 power consumption. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    If you look at the bottom of the first graph here, you can see that (on the same process) A53 still has better perf/power than even A73. A73 has more performance but less efficiency. A35 comes from the other side, as vladx says -- less performance, more efficiency. A53 performance itself is very much 'good enough' as phones like the Moto G4 show.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/10347/arm-cortex-a73...
    Reply
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Death to A53s!!!! Seriously.

    Why does anyone care about gigabit LTE when we rarely see over 25 Mbps anyway? The modem isn't going to speed up the telco speeds.
    Reply
  • sherifhanna - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Not exactly. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyLL8BO-HRg Reply
  • UtilityMax - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    The A53 cores built on a modern 14nm or 16nm process can achieve the same level of performance as Snapdragon 800 cores, while being very easy on the battery. Not bad for a cheap, under-300USD smartphones. The crappy ones were the A53s in the SoCs like SD617, which were built on 28nm process. Reply
  • Valis - Thursday, May 11, 2017 - link

    You'd better make that $200 smarties. :P Reply
  • fishjunk - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    Great move by Qualcomm releasing the Snapdragon 660. We will see more midrange-priced phones with great performance by Kyro cores. Reply
  • 0iron - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    Have you seen phones with 650 at mid-range price other than Xiaomi's? It could be the same with 660. It will be priced slightly below than flagship. Even Xiaomi downgrade Redmi Note 4 to 625 Reply
  • Jordan Taylor - Tuesday, May 09, 2017 - link

    So is a Snapdragon 660 basically a SD 800/801/808 done right? Reply
  • UtilityMax - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    I don't know if we can lump 800/801 into the same class with 808. The 800/801 were using 32 bit Krait cores, while the 808 was 64 bit SoC using A57 + A53 cores. To me, it looks like the SD 660 is basically a SD 820 done the right way (in the sense of using a more modern manufacturing process, resulting in better efficiency and thermal properties). Reply
  • SquarePeg - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    The SD 660 Could have easily been called the SD 818. The only part of the SoC that is slower than SD 820 is the Adreno 512 gpu. But, even the Adreno 512 should allow you to play any game on the Play Store on high settings with solid frame rates. Reply
  • Suraj tiwari - Friday, May 12, 2017 - link

    @LiverpoolFC5903

    I wonder where you saw A53 having equal single-threaded performance as
    A57/A72.

    Here is the 'trusted' site -
    http://www.androidauthority.com/snapdragon-810-vs-...

    See A53 in mediatek is clocked at higher rate than A57. Did you see the performance difference between A53 and A57?

    Let alone comparing A53 to A72.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now