The Snapdragon 855 Performance Preview: Setting the Stage for Flagship Android 2019
by Andrei Frumusanu on January 15, 2019 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mobile
- Qualcomm
- Smartphones
- SoCs
- 7nm
- Snapdragon 855
GPU Performance & Power
GPU performance of the new Adreno 640 in the Snapdrago 855 is interesting: The company’s performance claims were relatively conservative as they showcased that the new unit would perform only 20% better than its predecessor. This is a relatively low figure given that Qualcomm also advertises that the new GPU sees a 50% increase in ALU configuration, as well as of course coming on a new 7nm process which should give the SoC a lot of new headroom.
Before discussing the implications in more detail, let’s see the performance numbers in the new GFXBench Aztec benchmarks.
As a reminder, we were only able to test the peak performance of the phone as we didn’t have time for a more thorough sustained performance investigation.
Both Aztec High and Normal results fall pretty much in line with Qualcomm’s advertised 20% improvement over the Snapdragon 845. Here the new chipset falls behind Apple’s A11 and A12 chips – although power consumption at peak levels is very different as we’ll see in just a bit.
| GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Offscreen Power Efficiency (System Active Power) |
||||
| Mfc. Process | FPS | Avg. Power (W) |
Perf/W Efficiency |
|
| iPhone XS (A12) Warm | 7FF | 76.51 | 3.79 | 20.18 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak | 7FF | 103.83 | 5.98 | 17.36 fps/W |
| Snapdragon 855 QRD | 7FF | 71.27 | 4.44 | 16.05 fps/W |
| Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) | 10LPP | 61.16 | 5.01 | 11.99 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) | 7FF | 54.54 | 4.57 | 11.93 fps/W |
| Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) | 10LPP | 46.04 | 4.08 | 11.28 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) | 10LPE | 38.90 | 3.79 | 10.26 fps/W |
| LeEco Le Pro3 (Snapdragon 821) | 14LPP | 33.04 | 4.18 | 7.90 fps/W |
| Galaxy S7 (Snapdragon 820) | 14LPP | 30.98 | 3.98 | 7.78 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 10 (Kirin 970) | 10FF | 37.66 | 6.33 | 5.94 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) | 10LPE | 42.49 | 7.35 | 5.78 fps/W |
| Galaxy S7 (Exynos 8890) | 14LPP | 29.41 | 5.95 | 4.94 fps/W |
| Meizu PRO 5 (Exynos 7420) | 14LPE | 14.45 | 3.47 | 4.16 fps/W |
| Nexus 6P (Snapdragon 810 v2.1) | 20Soc | 21.94 | 5.44 | 4.03 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 8 (Kirin 950) | 16FF+ | 10.37 | 2.75 | 3.77 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 9 (Kirin 960) | 16FFC | 32.49 | 8.63 | 3.77 fps/W |
| Huawei P9 (Kirin 955) | 16FF+ | 10.59 | 2.98 | 3.55 fps/W |
Switching over to the power efficiency table in 3D workloads, we see Qualcomm take the lead in terms of power efficiency at peak performance, only trailing behind Apple's newest A12. What is most interesting is the fact that the Snapdragon 855’s overall power consumption has gone down compared to the Snapdragon 845 – now at around 4.4W versus the 5W commonly measured in S845 phones.
T-Rex’s performance gains are more limited because the test is more pixel and fill-rate bound. Here Qualcomm made a comment about benchmarks reaching very high framerates as they become increasingly CPU bound, but I’m not sure if that’s actually a problem yet as GFXBench has been traditionally very CPU light.
| GFXBench T-Rex Offscreen Power Efficiency (System Active Power) |
||||
| Mfc. Process | FPS | Avg. Power (W) |
Perf/W Efficiency |
|
| iPhone XS (A12) Warm | 7FF | 197.80 | 3.95 | 50.07 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak | 7FF | 271.86 | 6.10 | 44.56 fps/W |
| Snapdragon 855 QRD | 7FF | 167.19 | 3.83 | 43.65 fps/W |
| Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) | 10LPP | 150.40 | 4.42 | 34.00 fps/W |
| Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) | 10LPP | 141.91 | 4.34 | 32.67 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) | 10LPE | 108.20 | 3.45 | 31.31 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) | 7FF | 135.75 | 4.64 | 29.25 fps/W |
| LeEco Le Pro3 (Snapdragon 821) | 14LPP | 94.97 | 3.91 | 24.26 fps/W |
| Galaxy S7 (Snapdragon 820) | 14LPP | 90.59 | 4.18 | 21.67 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) | 10LPE | 121.00 | 5.86 | 20.65 fps/W |
| Galaxy S7 (Exynos 8890) | 14LPP | 87.00 | 4.70 | 18.51 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 10 (Kirin 970) | 10FF | 127.25 | 7.93 | 16.04 fps/W |
| Meizu PRO 5 (Exynos 7420) | 14LPE | 55.67 | 3.83 | 14.54 fps/W |
| Nexus 6P (Snapdragon 810 v2.1) | 20Soc | 58.97 | 4.70 | 12.54 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 8 (Kirin 950) | 16FF+ | 41.69 | 3.58 | 11.64 fps/W |
| Huawei P9 (Kirin 955) | 16FF+ | 40.42 | 3.68 | 10.98 fps/W |
| Huawei Mate 9 (Kirin 960) | 16FFC | 99.16 | 9.51 | 10.42 fps/W |
Again switching over to the power and efficiency tables, we see that the Snapdragon 855 is posting a ~30% efficiency boost over the Snapdragon 845, all while slightly improving performance.
Overall, I’m very happy with the initial performance and efficiency results of the Snapdragon 855. The S845 was a bit disappointing in some regards because Qualcomm had opted to achieve the higher performance figures by increasing the peak power requirements compared to exemplary thermal characteristics of the Snapdragon 835. The new chip doesn’t quite return to the low power figures of that generation, however it meets it half-way and does represent a notable improvement over the Snapdragon 845.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
132 Comments
View All Comments
genekellyjr - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link
You might be clueless too! There weren't any "4k rendering" benchmarks in that link - but there were 4k encoding benchmarks.And as for that encoding performance you are apparently referencing, it is definitely using fixed function encoders - it's not the CPU performance as Geekbench tests use (and I want to stress cross-platform Geekbench isn't 1:1 scoring - you'll never find Andandtech comparing various CPU architectures with Geekbench as it even uses fixed function resources like AES in its crypto stuff). And the speeds the laptops show definitely point to a CPU encoder being used. A fixed function encoder will barely hit the CPU, while CPU encoding will max those cores at 100%. The CPU encoding is higher quality at the cost of heat and speed.
Recently Adobe updated Premier to support Intel's fixed function encoder (called quick sync) read here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?362263-Ad... post #8 - and Rush may not have gotten that update yet or the benchmark site referenced didn't update their program https://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/new-ipad... but I managed to find a benchmark for the quick sync in Premier https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/101459 - and Intel's quick sync fixed function stuff is all relatively the same afaik so the desktop CPU has less of an impact - gives a 1:20 min 4K -> 1080p conversion at 91 sec w/ CPU and 45 sec w/ fixed function, scale that up to 12 min (x9) and we get 13:39 w/ CPU (it's a nice CPU, i7-8700K) and the fixed function encoder gets 6:45. It'll probably scale pretty linearly. So 6:45 vs 7:47 with fixed function encoding - which isn't comparing CPUs at all at this point but rather their fixed function encoder!
So the iPad has some nice hardware, sure, but it's not outperforming Intel's brand new MB Pro 13" by leaps and bounds. They'll probably be about the same speed with fixed function encoding and the MB Pro 13" will win in a non-encoder setting thanks to its increased TDP.
darkich - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
Okay.. So in short, the A12X is "about the same" in CPU performance as Intel's actively cooled, CPU-specific and twice more power hungry chip while also having a 1+TFLOPS GPU, 4G modem and advanced ISP on the same die.Overall, if that is what you call "nice", then Intel's hardware is what?
Trash.
Rudde - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
Let's compare Intel i7-8500Y and Apple A12X. The i7-8500Y is a dual core 5W 14nm notebook/tablet processor. A12X is a octa core 7nm tablet processor with unknown power usage. 8500Y uses the x86-64 instruction set, while A12X uses ARMv8. They have very few benchmarks in common, which introduces notable amounts of uncertainty.Let's start with Geekbench 4.1/4.2 Single threaded:
8500Y scored 4885 and A12X 4993. A12X leads with 2%, which is within margin of error.
Same benchmark, but multithreaded:
8500Y scored 8225 and A12X 17866. A12X demolishes the dual core with 117% higher performance. This is clearly because of the 4-core-cluster in A12X having double core count compared with the dual core 8500Y.
Next up we have Mozilla Kraken 1.1 showing browser performance:
8500Y scores 1822ms and A12X 609ms. The A12X took 67% less time to complete the task, which amounts to a 199% increase in performance.
Octane V2 is another browser performance benchmark:
8500Y scores 24567 and A12X 45080. A12X bests the Intel cpu by 83%.
3D Mark has two versions of Ice Storm Physics and unfortunately our processors use different versions. They use the same resolution however.
8500Y scores 25064 in standard physics and A12X 39393 in unlimited physics. A12X scores a 57% lead.
It's hard to establish system performance with such a limited amount of benchmarks. Geekbench and 3DMark are synthetics and the two others show browser performance.
The processors are equal in ST, but the A12Xs higher core count allows it to double the 8500Ys MT score. The A12X outpaces the 8500Y in 3dMark. The A12X is clearly superior in browser performance. Apples A12 drops closer to the Intel in synthetics, but performs similar to it's larger sibling in web benchmarks.
Winner: A12X
Nemaca - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Overall, the 855 was thought to be head and shoulders above Kirin, but it seems that it will be on the same level at best.I'm typing this from my already heavily used mate 20pro, so if the US wouldn't nuke Huawei global-wide right now, the Kirin would certainly push ahead, which I hope it will do, since it seems more competitive price-wise.
Huawei bypassed the power issue with larger batteries, but to be honest, the Kirin doesn't seem to be that hungry anyway.
For me, the 855 is a letdown, I was hoping for more, but it seems my mate20pro will be relevant for longer then I thought, so not too bad of a news, I guess.
Thank you, Andrei, for the in-depth review!
Achtung_BG - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link
Snapdragon 855 .......https://youtu.be/mqFLXayD6e8
darkich - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
This here proves once and for all that your system performance benchmarks are just bogus and irrelevant.Are we seriously supposed to believe that Snapdragon actually made a lower performing chipset than their previous one?
BS
darkich - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
*Qualcomm, not SnapdragonIcehawk - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
It's happened before in the chase for efficiencynpp - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
I really doubt we’ll see battery life improve much with this generation. Hint - 5G. Maybe that’s why 855 focuses on overall efficiency, and the GPU gains are modest. Let’s hope I’m wrong.Impulses - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Yeah, that's the big wrench in the works... Hopefully there's at least *some* flagships without 5G! Though I doubt I'll be looking for an upgrade from my Pixel 3 this year or next.