Apple, Huawei both using 7nm TSMC processors, beating out Qualcomm and Samsung

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,269member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    Kuo writes the move to the 7-nanometer Kirin 980 helps Huawei narrow the gap between itself and Apple "in terms of user experience," as well as differentiating its products from other Android-based smartphone vendors. 

    How can it help them "narrow the gap" when they're still relying on an inferior operating system and App ecosystem?
    In theory, Google will have the same advantage, given time, but I'm not sure they can exploit it and keep Android OS nominally "open".
    From its inception, Android was only a response to an already existing iOS and iPhone. Google got it wrong from the start (and had to quickly and hectically correct mistake after that first Jobs presentation) and they continue getting it wrong every time and still need Apple’s “inspiration” to stay on the path. And that is for one simple reason - they do not have a coherent vision/plan....just like good old Sammy,
    iOS wasn't even a rumor much less "a thing" when Google began developing Android as a smartphone OS. 
    Is that why Google completely missed the mark and had to start from scratch after Apple presented the  iPhone 1?
    My bet is Google got someone at Apple to leak a bit of info on what Apple was doing. It wasnt a lot of info, and as Apple was very secretive (for a good reason).
    My guess is that you're a lousy guesser. :)
    Go back and do a little history searching. 

    EDIT: This is a pretty good summation of how it all started.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-android-was-created-2015-3
    edited October 2
  • Reply 22 of 81
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,696member
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.
    Meh, their chips don’t have a great reputation. The 970 is behind the i35, much less the contemporary 845. The 980 will be behind Apple, Qualcomm and Samsung, as usual. Their AI section is a couple of years behind too. Not impressed.

    its good that they try though. Someday they’ll get it right.
    Strange conclusion.

    Last year's Kirin 970 had better NPU performance and a Cat 18 modem. The best phone of the year on many fronts is still the P20 Pro - which has a Kirin 970. That's hardly 'meh' worthy. Apple, even with its new SoC is just catching up with the modem, but is still lagging.

    The Kirin 980  has a Cat 19 modem and an ultra fast (I believe it's -or will be shortly- the fastest on a phone) wi-fi chipset. The co-processors, dual ISPs and DSP are sure to be no slouches either. That puts your 'still behind' comment into context.

    You realise that the 970 was shipping around five months before the 845 and Huawei deliberately chose to launch without the latest ARM cores for questions of maturity and stability? Are you surprised that the 845 produces better numbers? That didn't stop them from releasing the phone of the year.

    I don't know what 'don't have a great reputation' is supposed to mean.
    edited October 2
  • Reply 23 of 81
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    avon b7 said:
    ...Huawei deliberately chose to launch without the latest ARM cores for questions of maturity and stability…
    Based on their all benchmark cheating I also have questions about their maturity and stability. They seem to have the mentality of an average Fortnite player. :smiley: 
    ericthehalfbeeStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 81
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,696member
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.

    So they designed all the easy stuff. When they design their own CPU or GPU cores then I'll be impressed.

    Cores are, by far, the most important and difficult portion of an SoC to design. By comparison, a NPU is simple to create compared to a CPU.
    If it is so easy, why is Apple behind?
  • Reply 25 of 81
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.
    So they designed all the easy stuff. When they design their own CPU or GPU cores then I'll be impressed.

    Cores are, by far, the most important and difficult portion of an SoC to design. By comparison, a NPU is simple to create compared to a CPU.
    If it is so easy, why is Apple behind?
    Apple is often behind in many of the superficial benchmarks that people look at. They don't care if they have the most RAM because they've put in the hard work to make their OS more efficient and design their own chips right down to the core in order to further take advantage of that synergy all to allow for better efficiency.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 81
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,696member
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.
    So they designed all the easy stuff. When they design their own CPU or GPU cores then I'll be impressed.

    Cores are, by far, the most important and difficult portion of an SoC to design. By comparison, a NPU is simple to create compared to a CPU.
    If it is so easy, why is Apple behind?
    Apple is often behind in many of the superficial benchmarks that people look at. They don't care if they have the most RAM because they've put in the hard work to make their OS more efficient and design their own chips right down to the core in order to further take advantage of that synergy all to allow for better efficiency.
    That doesn't change the observation. If this is the 'easy stuff' (and let's be honest, modems and WiFi are key smartphone areas), why hasn't Apple corrected the situation?
  • Reply 27 of 81
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.

    So they designed all the easy stuff. When they design their own CPU or GPU cores then I'll be impressed.

    Cores are, by far, the most important and difficult portion of an SoC to design. By comparison, a NPU is simple to create compared to a CPU.
    If it is so easy, why is Apple behind?

    Behind? Sorry, troll, it's Huawei that's behind.

    Patiently waiting for your cherry-picked example of where Apple is behind while ignoring the major areas where they are far ahead.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 81
    thttht Posts: 2,848member
    melgross said:
    tht said:
    chipped said:
    tjwolf said:
    "HiSilicon advised it was planning to spend a minimum of $300 million on a system-on-chip design using 7-nanometer technology, illustrating the potentially high costs involved in working at that level."  I have no idea what the author is talking about here.  Why would it cost any more to *design* at 7nm than at 10nm?  I'm pretty sure the high costs/complexity is mostly on the manufacturing side.
    What do you mean? He said it has a high cost, doesn’t say that 10nm or larger weren’t also expensive to develop. I think he’s trying to make a point that shrinking your designs costs a massive amount of money.

    Don’t understand the questions. You can think of the cost of design for a single transistor as a constant cost per transistor. The higher density chip plants enable more transistors per chip, thereby costing more to design the chip.

    Those bigger NPU, GPU, CPU, ISP, SE, power management units don’t come for free. Every additional transistor will have some cost to it during design time. There are 50% more transistors in the A12 versus the A11 or something like that. And, I would bet those 50% more transistors cost more to put into a design than the prior increase in transistors from the A10 to the A11.


    A number of years ago AMD said that the cost of a transistor on 14nm was more than on 22nm, and that it would just get worse as size went down. That’s true. Chip plant costs have doubled from 22nm to 10nm, and keep rising. It’s the major reason why Global Foundries dropped out.

    a big problem is that computer sales have flattened. Previously, higher costs were mediated by higher sales, but that’s ending. A big question is whether the many more, smaller chips produced on a wafer, offset the lack of increased sales of much larger, much more expensive chips. The wafer size remains at 300 mm. The industry was preparing to move to 450 mm wafers years ago because of the supposed lowered costs per square mm, but it never happened, because those savings couldn’t be proven, as a result of the equipment costs for such were so much higher.

    so we’re stuck. 

    Yeah, I agree with the folks here who are saying costs per transistor are only going up for the smaller nodes, with some increasingly complex design in the transistors and circuits themselves to account for quantum effects, increasing power leakage, thermals, etc. And, there probably will have to be software to correct for some of those effects too, which will be quite strange. I mean something like applying statistics to determine if a transistor did indeed change states, because in the quantum world, you never really know, and if software is being run a on a non-determinate machine, how the heck would we know the computations would be right in the first place to make the correction?

    Samsung’s 10nm fab supposedly cost $17b. Intel’s still not working 10nm fab is probably $30b now, after what, 6 years of working on it? It’s like government sized capital investments now. If the USA gov’t was smart, billions of R&D dollars should have been awarded, should be continually awarded, to help get to 7nm, 5nm and 3nm nodes. There can only be one fab technique with Moore’s Second Law likely going exponential rather than the (approximate) linear doubling of costs every four years that we’ve seen.

    And maybe 450 mm wafers at 10nm fab densities might be a real outcome if <7nm densities don’t pan out? The PC market is on a slow decline, but smartphones, servers, wearables, implantables, whatever, still has some cycles left in it.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 81
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,696member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.

    So they designed all the easy stuff. When they design their own CPU or GPU cores then I'll be impressed.

    Cores are, by far, the most important and difficult portion of an SoC to design. By comparison, a NPU is simple to create compared to a CPU.
    If it is so easy, why is Apple behind?

    Behind? Sorry, troll, it's Huawei that's behind.

    Patiently waiting for your cherry-picked example of where Apple is behind while ignoring the major areas where they are far ahead.
    Yes. Behind.

    On the 'easy stuff'. Your words. Not mine. No need to cherry pick. You yourself jumped in with that claim.

    I see you have no answer. May I suggest it isn't as easy as you imagine?

    You understand why Huawei might know a bit more about those fields than Apple, right?
  • Reply 30 of 81
    thttht Posts: 2,848member
    tmay said:
    I am interested in how Samsung does with the Exynos 9820, with it's m cores

    Based on Anandtech’s analysis of the Exynos 9810 (in the GS9), if Samsung just fixes the CPU mess in the 9810, and calls it a 9820, they would be having a good release. CPU cores ran too hot, seemed architecturally weak for certain tasks, and all in all, Samsung had to neuter its performance to have decent battery life.

    I’m waiting on what Apple will do with the SoC for the upcoming iPad Pros, plus have my credit cards cancelled before they announce them. If it is an A12X with 3 core clusters (3 high, 6 low) with the high perf cores at say 2.7 GHz, 2x the GPU cores, and hopefully 8 GB RAM standard and even a 16 GB RAM option, it would be as performant or a higher performance machine than the Coffee Lake MBP13 models, sitting inside a 0.3” thick, 1.5 lb machine.


    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 81
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,696member
    "Mate Max"... just when I was starting to have some respect for the company for plowing its own path...
    If you are referring the the use of 'Max' in the name, it is not new for Huawei or even Honor.

    It's been in use for years.

    As for the Mate (20?) Max though, I'm not even sure there is one planned.
  • Reply 32 of 81
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.

    So they designed all the easy stuff. When they design their own CPU or GPU cores then I'll be impressed.

    Cores are, by far, the most important and difficult portion of an SoC to design. By comparison, a NPU is simple to create compared to a CPU.
    If it is so easy, why is Apple behind?

    Behind? Sorry, troll, it's Huawei that's behind.

    Patiently waiting for your cherry-picked example of where Apple is behind while ignoring the major areas where they are far ahead.
    Yes. Behind.

    On the 'easy stuff'. Your words. Not mine. No need to cherry pick. You yourself jumped in with that claim.

    I see you have no answer. May I suggest it isn't as easy as you imagine?

    You understand why Huawei might know a bit more about those fields than Apple, right?

    Do you think repeating lies over and over will make them true?

    The only thing Apple doesn't make is the cellular modem. They make their own WiFi, Bluetooth, ISP, DSP and NPU as well. Oh, wait, Apple also makes their NVMe storage controller (nobody else does this and even the 980 relies on the vastly inferior UFS). Let's see, what else.....oh yeah, Apple also makes their own inline hardware encryption module. Including the CPU and GPU that's 4 more items Apple designs that Huawei doesn't.

    And you have the nerve to claim Huawei is ahead because they put a modem in their SoC?

    And yes, a CPU and GPU are FAR MORE difficult to make than all those other listed components. Which is why we have countless companies that make all those very same components and only a couple that make CPU's or GPU's.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,036member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    Kuo writes the move to the 7-nanometer Kirin 980 helps Huawei narrow the gap between itself and Apple "in terms of user experience," as well as differentiating its products from other Android-based smartphone vendors. 

    How can it help them "narrow the gap" when they're still relying on an inferior operating system and App ecosystem?
    In theory, Google will have the same advantage, given time, but I'm not sure they can exploit it and keep Android OS nominally "open".
    From its inception, Android was only a response to an already existing iOS and iPhone. Google got it wrong from the start (and had to quickly and hectically correct mistake after that first Jobs presentation) and they continue getting it wrong every time and still need Apple’s “inspiration” to stay on the path. And that is for one simple reason - they do not have a coherent vision/plan....just like good old Sammy,
    iOS wasn't even a rumor much less "a thing" when Google began developing Android as a smartphone OS. Google might do a lot of things you don't like but doing Android because Apple was doing iOS isn't one of them.

    The whole reason for Android development as a mobile OS was as a buttress against Microsoft which even DED will tell you. And has. He ridiculed the idea that Google had any intent of Android hurting Apple, and if even he came to that conclusion back when development was still in its early stages it should tell you something. His change of heart and tone came well after the G1 was intro'd in 2008, but that doesn't change how it started out. 

    if you want to claim that Google is getting inspiration from Apple today and has for a number of years you won't get a single argument from me. Of course they do. In fairness Apple gets some ideas from the Android side too, and both will continue driving each other to be better...

    ... But when Google decided to pursue Android in late 2004/ very early 2005 (depending on whose memory you'e going by) following an investment in them in February of that year there weren't even rumors of an iPhone, much less the OS to drive it. It was all about Microsoft and the danger they represented to Google. THAT'S why Google committed itself to Android OS development.
    Well, Apple did sue Andy Rubin for stealing information when he was a programmer at Apple, when working on code for the iPhone and the iPad, which was an even earlier project. And the original android copied the Blackberry, not Windows Mobile. In fact, the well circulated image of that first Android prototype device looks like a cross between a Blackberry and a Palm device.

    You can see the difference in Android before, and after the iPhone.

    pretty obvious that Google did copy the iPhone as well as they could in the little time they had after the iPhone’s announcement.
    edited October 2 pscooter63StrangeDaysSpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 81
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 197member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    Kuo writes the move to the 7-nanometer Kirin 980 helps Huawei narrow the gap between itself and Apple "in terms of user experience," as well as differentiating its products from other Android-based smartphone vendors. 

    How can it help them "narrow the gap" when they're still relying on an inferior operating system and App ecosystem?
    In theory, Google will have the same advantage, given time, but I'm not sure they can exploit it and keep Android OS nominally "open".
    From its inception, Android was only a response to an already existing iOS and iPhone. Google got it wrong from the start (and had to quickly and hectically correct mistake after that first Jobs presentation) and they continue getting it wrong every time and still need Apple’s “inspiration” to stay on the path. And that is for one simple reason - they do not have a coherent vision/plan....just like good old Sammy,
    iOS wasn't even a rumor much less "a thing" when Google began developing Android as a smartphone OS. 
    Is that why Google completely missed the mark and had to start from scratch after Apple presented the  iPhone 1?
    My bet is Google got someone at Apple to leak a bit of info on what Apple was doing. It wasnt a lot of info, as Apple was very secretive (for a good reason), so Google eng team had to invent a lot of things and they did....and missed the boat.
    You aren’t by any chance referring to ‘the Mole?’
  • Reply 35 of 81
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,696member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.

    So they designed all the easy stuff. When they design their own CPU or GPU cores then I'll be impressed.

    Cores are, by far, the most important and difficult portion of an SoC to design. By comparison, a NPU is simple to create compared to a CPU.
    If it is so easy, why is Apple behind?

    Behind? Sorry, troll, it's Huawei that's behind.

    Patiently waiting for your cherry-picked example of where Apple is behind while ignoring the major areas where they are far ahead.
    Yes. Behind.

    On the 'easy stuff'. Your words. Not mine. No need to cherry pick. You yourself jumped in with that claim.

    I see you have no answer. May I suggest it isn't as easy as you imagine?

    You understand why Huawei might know a bit more about those fields than Apple, right?

    Do you think repeating lies over and over will make them true?

    The only thing Apple doesn't make is the cellular modem. They make their own WiFi, Bluetooth, ISP, DSP and NPU as well. Oh, wait, Apple also makes their NVMe storage controller (nobody else does this and even the 980 relies on the vastly inferior UFS). Let's see, what else.....oh yeah, Apple also makes their own inline hardware encryption module. Including the CPU and GPU that's 4 more items Apple designs that Huawei doesn't.

    And you have the nerve to claim Huawei is ahead because they put a modem in their SoC?

    And yes, a CPU and GPU are FAR MORE difficult to make than all those other listed components. Which is why we have countless companies that make all those very same components and only a couple that make CPU's or GPU's.
    But you still didn't answer the question!


  • Reply 36 of 81
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    ericthehalfbee said:
    Oh, wait, Apple also makes their NVMe storage controller (nobody else does this
    Since it doesn't exactly pop on a spec sheet I can see why they don't have an interest in making all parts of their devices faster, more power efficient, all around better.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,036member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    Kuo writes the move to the 7-nanometer Kirin 980 helps Huawei narrow the gap between itself and Apple "in terms of user experience," as well as differentiating its products from other Android-based smartphone vendors. 

    How can it help them "narrow the gap" when they're still relying on an inferior operating system and App ecosystem?
    In theory, Google will have the same advantage, given time, but I'm not sure they can exploit it and keep Android OS nominally "open".
    From its inception, Android was only a response to an already existing iOS and iPhone. Google got it wrong from the start (and had to quickly and hectically correct mistake after that first Jobs presentation) and they continue getting it wrong every time and still need Apple’s “inspiration” to stay on the path. And that is for one simple reason - they do not have a coherent vision/plan....just like good old Sammy,
    iOS wasn't even a rumor much less "a thing" when Google began developing Android as a smartphone OS. 
    Is that why Google completely missed the mark and had to start from scratch after Apple presented the  iPhone 1?
    My bet is Google got someone at Apple to leak a bit of info on what Apple was doing. It wasnt a lot of info, and as Apple was very secretive (for a good reason).
    My guess is that you're a lousy guesser. :)
    Go back and do a little history searching. 

    EDIT: This is a pretty good summation of how it all started.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-android-was-created-2015-3
    Sorry, but Anton is correct. Android. As envisioned by Andy Rubin, and Google, after they bought Rubin’s company, was the Blackberry. This is so well understood, that reading anything to the contrary isn’t worth the time.

    and yes, Google pretty much started over with the UI after the iPhone was shown. 
    tmaythtpscooter63ericthehalfbeeStrangeDaysSpamSandwichJWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,269member
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    Kuo writes the move to the 7-nanometer Kirin 980 helps Huawei narrow the gap between itself and Apple "in terms of user experience," as well as differentiating its products from other Android-based smartphone vendors. 

    How can it help them "narrow the gap" when they're still relying on an inferior operating system and App ecosystem?
    In theory, Google will have the same advantage, given time, but I'm not sure they can exploit it and keep Android OS nominally "open".
    From its inception, Android was only a response to an already existing iOS and iPhone. Google got it wrong from the start (and had to quickly and hectically correct mistake after that first Jobs presentation) and they continue getting it wrong every time and still need Apple’s “inspiration” to stay on the path. And that is for one simple reason - they do not have a coherent vision/plan....just like good old Sammy,
    iOS wasn't even a rumor much less "a thing" when Google began developing Android as a smartphone OS. Google might do a lot of things you don't like but doing Android because Apple was doing iOS isn't one of them.

    The whole reason for Android development as a mobile OS was as a buttress against Microsoft which even DED will tell you. And has. He ridiculed the idea that Google had any intent of Android hurting Apple, and if even he came to that conclusion back when development was still in its early stages it should tell you something. His change of heart and tone came well after the G1 was intro'd in 2008, but that doesn't change how it started out. 

    if you want to claim that Google is getting inspiration from Apple today and has for a number of years you won't get a single argument from me. Of course they do. In fairness Apple gets some ideas from the Android side too, and both will continue driving each other to be better...

    ... But when Google decided to pursue Android in late 2004/ very early 2005 (depending on whose memory you'e going by) following an investment in them in February of that year there weren't even rumors of an iPhone, much less the OS to drive it. It was all about Microsoft and the danger they represented to Google. THAT'S why Google committed itself to Android OS development.
    Well, Apple did sue Andy Rubin for stealing information when he was a programmer at Apple, when working on code for the iPhone and the iPad, which was an even earlier project. And the original android copied the Blackberry, not Windows Mobile. In fact, the well circulated image of that first Android prototype device looks like a cross between a Blackberry and a Palm device.

    You can see the difference in Android before, and after the iPhone.

    pretty obvious that Google did copy the iPhone as well as they could in the little time they had after the iPhone’s announcement.
    Yes, they certainly changed direction after Apple showed how well a full-touch interface could work. I won't argue with that. It's a fact.  As for Apple suing Rubin that's the first I'd seen that mentioned. Link? Not saying I doubt you're right...
    but I doubt you're right.  
    ;)

    Rubin working on code for the iPad and iPhone seems like a bizarre claim.  There was no iPad or iPhone project while he was there. He only worked for Apple a short time (Apple says 1990-92) as essentially a new junior engineer who would hardly be tasked with developing an OS for Apple. The only silly connection anyone has made to any Apple-developed tech was his superior at the time being co-credited with one patent that read on a real-time processing system, a patent that Apple was suing HTC over which some Apple lawyer thought they could perhaps get a little traction with. Lawyers are good at the planting doubt stuff, they don't have to believe what comes out of their mouths. 

    Silliness... 
    edited October 2 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 39 of 81
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,036member

    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    The Kirin SoCs use standard ARM technology and cores. The performance is nothing to write home about, as the expression goes.
    They also use designed in-house WiFi, modem, ISP and DSP etc. There is more to a SoC than cores.
    Meh, their chips don’t have a great reputation. The 970 is behind the i35, much less the contemporary 845. The 980 will be behind Apple, Qualcomm and Samsung, as usual. Their AI section is a couple of years behind too. Not impressed.

    its good that they try though. Someday they’ll get it right.
    Strange conclusion.

    Last year's Kirin 970 had better NPU performance and a Cat 18 modem. The best phone of the year on many fronts is still the P20 Pro - which has a Kirin 970. That's hardly 'meh' worthy. Apple, even with its new SoC is just catching up with the modem, but is still lagging.

    The Kirin 980  has a Cat 19 modem and an ultra fast (I believe it's -or will be shortly- the fastest on a phone) wi-fi chipset. The co-processors, dual ISPs and DSP are sure to be no slouches either. That puts your 'still behind' comment into context.

    You realise that the 970 was shipping around five months before the 845 and Huawei deliberately chose to launch without the latest ARM cores for questions of maturity and stability? Are you surprised that the 845 produces better numbers? That didn't stop them from releasing the phone of the year.

    I don't know what 'don't have a great reputation' is supposed to mean.
    Not strange at all, go look at the tests yourself. Oops! Be careful as most of them add to the results because of Huawei’s cheating. Even so, it not great.

    its funny that you’re so sure about the performance of this chip that isn’t out yet, but by the specs, will not be a top performing device. Huawei can’t produce their own cores, so they use whatever ARM licenses directly. Don’t make pitiful excuses.
    StrangeDaysSpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 81
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 197member
    tht said:
    I’m waiting on what Apple will do with the SoC for the upcoming iPad Pros, plus have my credit cards cancelled before they announce them. If it is an A12X with 3 core clusters (3 high, 6 low) with the high perf cores at say 2.7 GHz, 2x the GPU cores, and hopefully 8 GB RAM standard and even a 16 GB RAM option, it would be as performant or a higher performance machine than the Coffee Lake MBP13 models, sitting inside a 0.3” thick, 1.5 lb machine.
    Oh Intel....   How the mighty have fallen.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.