The Snapdragon 845 Performance Preview: Setting the Stage for Flagship Android 2018
by Ryan Smith & Andrei Frumusanu on February 12, 2018 12:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Mobile
- Snapdragon
- Qualcomm
- Smartphones
- SoCs
- Snapdragon 845
First Thoughts
Coming into 2018, Qualcomm is facing what we expect to be a busy and certainly competitive year for the company in the smartphone platform space. Iterating on the well-received Snapdragon 835 – and without the benefit of a new manufacturing node – is no easy task. All the while Apple has once again thrown down the gauntlet with their A11 SoC if one wants to argue about top tech, and even in the Android space Qualcomm isn’t the only high-end SoC vendor, as we await to see what Samsung’s Exynos 9810 and its new Exynos M3 CPU cores can achieve.
Still, it’s a challenge that Qualcomm should be prepared for, if not a bit unevenly. With a focus on architecture the company has been hard at work for the Snapdragon 845, and as a result while it’s very much a Qualcomm SoC, it’s also not just a rehash of Snapdragon 835. Both the CPU and GPU are seeing substantial overhauls, not to mention smaller upgrades across the board for everything from the modem to the audio codec. And while Qualcomm rightfully argues that there’s more to a platform than just raw compute performance – that all of these pieces contribute to the overall user experience – they remain vital to device performance and battery life. Which is to say that Qualcomm is innovating where they need to in order to continue improving the heart of many flagship 2018 Android smartphones.
Overall the Snapdragon 845’s system performance is a mixed bag. We had higher expectations from the new CPU changes, but it seems we’ve only gotten incremental improvements. Web workloads seem to be the Snapdragon 845’s forte as that’s where we see the largest improvements. ARM is working on a long awaited overhaul as the Austin team is busy with a brand new microarchitecture which should bring larger generational improvements, but alas only with the next generation of SoCs in 2019. For many flagship Android phones, 2018 should remain another conservative year and we should not have too high expectations.
But with that said, whatever Qualcomm doesn’t quite bring to the table with their CPU, they more than make up on the GPU side of matters. Qualcomm’s new Adreno 630 GPU easily impresses and widens the gap to the nearest competition. Compared to the Exynos 8895 and Kirin 970 I expect the Snapdragon 845 to have a 3.5-5x PPA advantage when it comes to the GPU. The competition should be worried as it’s no longer feasible to compensate the power efficiency disadvantage with larger GPU configurations and there is need for more radical change to keep up with Qualcomm.
And while we weren’t able to test for system power efficiency improvements for this preview, we weren’t left empty-handed and were able to quickly do a CPU power virus on the QRD845. The results there have turned out promising, with 1W per-core and slightly under 4W for four-core power usage, which are very much in line with the Snapdragon 835. The new system cache and GPU improvements should also noticeably improve SoC – and in turn device – efficiency, so I’m expecting that 2018’s Snapdragon 845 powered devices to showcase excellent battery life.
What remains to be seen then is how this translates into shipping products. Previous Qualcomm device previews have turned out to be rather accurate, but handset manufacturers have countless ways to customize their phones, both for good and for bad. What we can say for now is that it looks like Qualcomm has once again delivered its handset partners a solid SoC from which to build their flagship phones. So we’re eager to see what retail phones can deliver, and ultimately how the Snapdragon 845 fits into the overall market for 2018 Android flagship smartphones.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
140 Comments
View All Comments
Eximorph - Sunday, February 18, 2018 - link
You should read a little before post comments. The speed of the gpu depends on the api Thats why apple change from open gl es to metal beacus metal is a low overhead so the performance is higher. And thats why when some one test a gpu have to do it under fair conditions and thats where 3Dmark is good. And like you can see even the adreno 530 on the same api have a better performance than the A11 gpu. Even on t-rex onscreen the performance of the new A11 gpu is the same has the adreno 530. 59 for A11, 60 for the adreno 530 on the oneplus 3t. one more time, apple today day Is almost 3 years behind. Vulkan is have been you in some game today day but you want to know whats the funny thing here, vulkan is on version 1 and offer the same persomance has metal and metal is on version 2 hahahah.Ratman6161 - Thursday, February 15, 2018 - link
"Good on Qualcomm for catching up but still 6 months to a year behind"I guess it depends how you define behind. With my trusty old (and completely paid for) Note 5, I have had a phone since 2015 that is plenty fast for everything I do. Do its all just academic for me. The days when I needed a faster CPU are long since over.
SoC lover - Friday, March 2, 2018 - link
A-11 bionic is just only 6 cores but still a flagship and powerful while snapdragon 835/845 has 8 cores so im thinking what if apple make a new chipset with 8 cores thats would be soo powerfulmfaisalkemal - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
i think why anandtech got that score because of the device run on cold condition. score from futuremark got from normal condition.BenSkywalker - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
We really should tip our hats to Qualcomm's legal team for this one. It is amazing their engineers have managed to push out a GPU that can edge out the Tegra X1 a mere three years after it came out.Slingshot Ex- 5360 graphics on a three year old SoC. Really shows how what truly matters in this market is top tier lawyers, and some fourth tier engineers.
Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
One uses ~12 watts and the other uses ~4W, great comparison there.BenSkywalker - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Two things, one is that your power numbers are going to have to be sourced, the highest number I could ever find was 10 watts(and that was using a UE4 torture test). The only power draw numbers I could find for Manhattan had is sucking down a whopping 1.51 watts for the GPU(just the GPU and clocked to match some crappy Apple SoC's performance).https://www.anandtech.com/show/8811/nvidia-tegra-x...
Second thing- 20nm vs 10nm. On an engineering basis, this is a sad part. Qualcomm's legal posturing is the only reason they are remotely viable.
We are being held back to a staggering degree because of Qualcomm's strong arm tactics. The performance numbers speak for themselves, they are years behind.
Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
That's the power on a Shield TV at maximum performance; source me. You're claiming that QC only reached now performance level so it's only fair to compare power at that level.Qualcomm is the one far ahead, your conspiracy theories make no sense.
BenSkywalker - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
You are comparing the power draw of an entire device to the SoC alone, and you are comparing a 20nm part to a 10nm part on your just plain wrong power numbers.I linked it- running Manhattan the x1's GPU was using less then half the power that the 845 was reporting- the comparison wasn't exactly fair as they weren't measuring the same thing, but it is closer to accurate then what you are trying to imply. Also, 20nm vs 10nm LPP- are you being intentionally obtuse here, or do you not have a clue what you are talking about whatsoever?
This part, at least on the GPU end, isn't just bad, it is pathetic. It can barely edge out a three year old SoC. It is a joke.
darkd - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
The x1 by itself is a 10-12W TDP part. You can Google this easily. Qualcomm SoCs are 4-5W typically. Also note you are comparing power draw at 33 fps of a different benchmark that runs ~40% faster (Manhattan 3.0 vs. 3.1), which makes no sense.The x1 at peak can hit ~60 fps on Manhattan 3.0. The 835 from last year can also do that, but at 2-3x less power.
If you want to talk the ~33 fps on Manhattan 3.0 where the 1.5W you mentioned was measured, then the Adreno 430 can do that about 3 years ago. Because that's peak clocks for the 430 it would likely be using 2+ W GPU power, which is more. The x1 was more power efficient than the 430, congrats. It hasn't been since then, however, as Qualcomm improved their Manhattan score 60-70% in 530. All of these number are easily obtained on gfxbench.com.
And I dunno what legal study you've done, but to imply Qualcomm lawyers can keep OEMs from using competitor SoCs is completely unfounded. Many of them have and do use other SoCs. They tend not to use Nvidia for mobile anymore, however, as the recent Nvidia parts all have too high a TDP.