Samsung Galaxy S 4 Review - Part 1
by Brian Klug on April 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTGalaxy S 4 - Powered by a Better Snapdragon 600 (APQ8064AB)?
At a high level, Samsung's Galaxy S 4 integrates Qualcomm's Snapdragon 600 SoC. From what Qualcomm told us about Snapdragon 600, we're dealing with four Krait 300 cores and an Adreno 320 GPU. The Krait 300 cores themselves are supposed to improve performance per clock over the original Krait CPU (Krait 200) through a handful of low level microarchitectural tweaks that we've gone through here. The Krait 300 design also allegedly improves the ability to run at higher frequencies without resorting to higher voltages. This isn't the first time we've talked about Snapdragon 600, but since then a few things have come to light.
Snapdragon 600 from HTC One - Chipworks
For starters, Chipworks got their hands on a Snapdragon 600 SoC (from an HTC One) and delayered the SoC. In its investigation, Chipworks discovered that Snapdragon 600 had the exact same die area as the previous generation Snapdragon S4 Pro (APQ8064). Also, although you'd expect APQ8064T markings on the chip itself, the part carried the same APQ8064 label as previous S4 Pro designs.
Avenger 2 Markings on Snapdragon 600 die from HTC One - Chipworks
Chipworks did note however that there were some subtle differences between a standard APQ8064 and the Snapdragon 600 SoC from the HTC One. The Snapdragon 600 from the One is labeled with an Avenger2 codename rather than Avenger, the latter was apparently present on prior APQ8064 designs. Chipworks also noticed differences in the topmost metal layer, although it's not clear whether or not they stopped there or found no differences in lower layers.
All of this points to a much more subtle set of physical differences between APQ8064 and the earliest Snapdragon 600s. Metal layer changes are often used to fix bugs in silicon without requiring a complete respin which can be costly and create additional delays. It's entirely possible that Krait 300 was actually just a bug fixed Krait 200, which would explain the identical die size and slight differences elsewhere.
That brings us to the Galaxy S 4. It's immediately apparent that something is different here because Samsung is shipping the Snapdragon 600 at a higher frequency than any other OEM. The Krait 300 cores in SGS4 can run at up to 1.9GHz vs. 1.7GHz for everyone else. Curiously enough, 1.9GHz is the max frequency that Qualcomm mentioned when it first announced Snapdragon 600.
Samsung is obviously a very large customer, so at first glance we assumed it could simply demand a better bin of Snapdragon 600 than its lower volume competitors. Looking a bit deeper however, we see that the Galaxy S 4 uses something different entirely.
APQ8064 from a Snapdragon 600 based HTC One - Chipworks
Digging through the Galaxy S 4 kernel source we see references to an APQ8064AB part. As a recap, APQ8064 was the first quad-core Krait 200 SoC with no integrated modem, more commonly referred to as Snapdragon S4 Pro. APQ8064T was supposed to be its higher clocked/Krait 300 based successor that ended up with the marketing name Snapdragon 600. APQ8064AB however is, at this point, unique to the Galaxy S 4 but still carries the Snapdragon 600 marketing name.
If we had to guess, we might be looking at an actual respin of the APQ8064 silicon in APQ8064AB. Assuming Qualcomm isn't playing any funny games here, APQ8064AB may simply be a respin capable of hitting higher frequencies. We'll have to keep a close eye on this going forward, but it's clear to me that the Galaxy S 4 is shipping with something different than everyone else who has a Snapdragon 600 at this point.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
335 Comments
View All Comments
Crocography - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
I really wish Anadtech would start comparing all of these to the Nokia 920.GTRagnarok - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
What's part 2 going to be? Just the Exynos version?theduckofdeath - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
"he weight argument is an interesting one. If you compare the all-plastic Galaxy S 4 to the all-metal HTC One, there's a difference of 13 grams."The Samsung also has a much larger battery, which is the most dense and weight-adding element in a phone. It also has a larger display. So, the real benefit is a lot more than 13 grams.
scaramoosh - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S4_ShootOut_1.ht...What's that? The GS4 actually has an amazing screen?
risa2000 - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
My Galaxy Note 2 with Samsung charger charges in around two and half hour since the beginning until now (6 months). Could it be because of different power voltage (as I am in Europe on 230 V AC)?jleach1 - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Why the heck would you call the inclusion of a mucroSD slot "disappointing"? What geek in their right mind would say that?And who in their right mind would pay $100 for an extra 16gb of NAND, when we all know it costs pennies, and we can buy a 32gb Class 10 card for $20?
ziggybiggunz - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Its $100 more for an extra 32gb on the HTC actually, for a total of 64gbziggybiggunz - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
HTC One buyers have become a very vicious cohort. Some poor chap on youtube had to remove his voice and disable comment because be was getting death threats for disliking the One. Every single comparison video on youtube is loaded with " fuck you for liking the S4", "Samsung paid you to like it, you fuck", "fuck plastics", "fuck Samsung"....."fucking magnest, how do they work". These are the same people who not to long ago where sucking Samsungs dick over the GS2, Gnex, and the Note 1/2. Chill out. HTC One is good phone, but dont start shitting over samsung all of a sudden because someone came along and gave you a metal body. Was the pain of having your hipster friends making fun of your plastic phone becoming that unbearable? Before the One came out, Android users prime ammunition for iPhone users was the removable battery and expansion option, and all the "gimicks" of Samsung flagships. So samsung gave you that again, but used polycorbonate, so its chopped liver now? As soon as someone says anything good about the S4, you hear..."nope, its not aluminum like the One". Give me a break....remember who your daddy iscryosx - Sunday, April 28, 2013 - link
The HTC One deserves the praise but the extremists are kind of getting out of hand...bhima - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Plastic is sort of bleh when it comes to this price bracket, but I feel Brian and Anand dismiss the desire for a removable battery too easily when comparing this phone to say the HTC One. On one hand, they say the removable battery isn't an issue because you upgrade your phone in 2 years (its implied), but on the other hand, they rightly make the point that we will most likely be buying these phones like how we buy computers in the near future due to carriers moving away from contracts. If this is the case, and we will be shelling out full retail, I would assume people would start to buy their phone like a computer and want to keep it LONGER than 2 years because they don't want to drop $300+ dollars on a new phone.Hell, the HTC One or the S4 are both such powerful phones that they could easily last much longer than 2 years, but the S4 is the only one that can actually last past this point... whereas the HTC One will be bricked due to a dying battery. I just find it strange that they had such great insight on how we will look at purchasing phones in the future without adding the foresight of battery concerns due to people keeping their phones longer.