Five Star, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreYou are good example of an incompetent, like the vast majority of people. Most people just look for the highest number they can find then they make assumptions based on that. They don't care abut the fact that the highest score shows only the multi core performance, when all cores used at 100%. But in real life usage it will never happen, you will never get the benefit of using all cores at 100%. However, most of the time only 1 or 2 cores are used at 100%. Most apps and games are single threaded, therefore the single core performance is the most important. The best examples are the emulators (DosBox, PPSSPP).
Also, don't forget about the overheating and throttling which means you will get lower performance as the CPU is heating during usage.
Five Star, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreWell, don't know about monopoly, but internal core development (Kryo and its SD830 incarnation) came to an abrupt end (and I guess horribly within QC confines). The decision to go to with the new semi-custom ARM-core licensing is a tell-tale that original Kryo was fat and power-thirsty even for 10nm compared to A72/73 & A53.
Also author talks about A53 as the only ultra-efficient 64-bit core, then shows a slide mentioning Cortex-A35 and A32. BTW, A53 is less power efficient than A7 at the same node and workload (outside of course of AES and SHA), which is why A35 and A32 exist.
Nice Article. :)
I tried to comment that all the charts with same label should have the label include the clockspeed. But the info is already there on mouse over.... Now why did I not think of that in the first place *LOL*.
Five Star, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreNot really- those are just scores for synthetic multi-core CPU benchmark. Reality is far away from those numbers.
I love the fact that faster and quantity of cores does not mean performance, it is all about how well develop it is. great article, keep writing :)
Five Star, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreLike they said - those are only synthetic benchmark scores - not real-life performance indicators. On top of that, we're still waiting to see SD835.
Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful than anything available on the Android market right now.
Kirin and Exynos chips are now better than Qualcomm and improving at a faster rate. Huawei and Samsung are doing the right thing.
Xiaomi also seems to be making its own SoC which is good news.
Just when I thought I knew a lot;
thanks,I hope to see more stuff like this.
(although I did not read it thoroughly)
Would have been a nice addition to also include GPU benchmarks of each chip. Why aren't Apple's products included in these charts ?
Many, many thanks GSMArena!
But, as there is no end to wishes and desired, can you factor in power consumption against the scores :)
Its very useful, please keep making articles like this, thanks gsmarena team:)
That's a good one. High quality work there. I think, for the benefit of the masses, there should be a hierarchy of CPUs/SoCs showing an equivalent part from another maker e.g. (equivalent of a Snapdragon 820 in Kirin or Helios flavors).
There should be also useful information or way to commend chips such as the SD 625 as it should be more popular but not too expensive.
In the end, I would just like consumers to be more savvy and not just buy the prettiest or the expensive ones.