>
New Topic
>
Topic Locked
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Rumours
> SONY XPERIA Rumors 2014
Bookmark topic
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 11:41:24
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-11-11 11:36:32, Xajel wrote:
I didn't say that Q has anything, I said I didn't hear anything 64bit'sh for 1H14, and as you said, it's only a better yields of current products + newer & faster GPU... I know that... but what I said also that I know nothing of any 2H14 plans for Q... so maybe they have something for 2H14 or maybe nothing and we will have to wait till 2015 for anything 64bit...
I know that Qualcomm have their own design of ARM compatible architecture, as you said, based on ARMv7... it's just custom... deeper than what Apple is doing with their A6+A7 SoC... which are based on ARM9/ARM57 designs with some Apple modifications and customisations to increase the ARM9 performance ( as they didn't go to ARM15 )...
While Krait is a not as powerful as A15, it came much earlier than A15, the performance is not that much different between the two, Qualcomm get it in the right time as A15 designs took longer time to mature specially that pure A15 designs are power hungry that's why ARM went for the LITTLE.big idea which combines A15 + A7 cores and switch between them depending on the work load, Krait doesn't need such logic as it has superior power management and can handle different workload... Samsung went for LITTLE.big route but it failed in the first attempt ( that octa in S4 ) as it can't run all the cores in the same time ( so it's not a real octa ) and the driver is faulty to choose the cores depending on the workload, they have a lot of improvements with newer firmwares but still faulty... thats why they designed another SoC which is real octa ( can use all cores in the same time ) and the driver is better triggering the right cores depending on the workload... Tegra4 is nothing also ( much lower design wins ) and it also have that fifth combined core which turns on to save power ( as the other four cores are power hungry A15 )...
Krait now running the mastered the design stage ( reducing leak, optimising the process ), that's why they're going higher with the clock while maintaining the target TDP... A15 is still far from being at this stage ( needs more time )...
so Krait is lower in performance than A15 not because A15 is only superior, but because it came earlier so the target performance + power is lower...
Samsung Exynos is nothing special, is just pure A15+A7 design based on big.LITTLE design... there's no customization, and when Samsung made the first SoC it's wasn't complete actually that's why the first SoC was a crap and the crappiest thing they do is that they used it in an actual flagship product ( S4 i9500 )... they was just rushing everything to say ( We have the first Octa core SoC and product )... and it wasn't octa at all !!
That Chinese newcomer MediaTek made the first real Octacore, yes it was based on A9, and older arch. but it was really Octa, real 8 cores running in the same time !! I know performance might not be that much but at least they're not lying and rushing they made it for cheap phones that's why it's not complicated and uses cheaper and older design ( ARM A9 )
Qualcomm is already working on 64bit SoC, but not Krait at all... it's a new arch but we just don't know when it will be ready, 2H14 or 2015... we just don't know... what we know that it's sure not in 1H14...
>
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 12:14:13
Edit :
Quote
Qualcomm designed their own chips based around the ARMv7 architecture. The Krait CPU from Q is based on an EARLY version of the A15 before it was finalized. It is a 28nm processor.
ARMv7 is an instruction set, not an architecture (huge difference, for instance AMD and Intel have the same instruction set but their architectures are completey different.) And Krait have been designed by Qualcomm around the same instruction set, and is completely unrelated from A15. At least you recognized that you made a mistake when you said that their node is several generation behind 28nm.
These companies license the architecture and design their own individual SoC AROUND their custom ARM CPUs.
Each company have the choice to either licence the architecture (like nVidia and Samsung who are using A15) or to licence only the instruction set and design their own, custom core compatible with ARM's own CPU out there. Qualcomm and Apple licenced the instruction set and designed their processor completely independantly from ARM.
Intel fabrication is at 14nm (2 fabrication nodes below the S800 @ 28nm, 20nm being the middle step between the two).
Intel haven't released yet any processor based on 14nm.
Your analogy between ATI and NVIDIA for graphics cards is inapplicable here for this discussion as its irrelevant to the points that were being made. false dichotomy.
Then you didn't get my point. You said Krait isn't even an A15, while Krait and A15 are completely unrelated architecture-wise and have been designed by two different companies. So that makes as much sense as saying a Radeon isn't EVEN a GeForce. We all know Radeon and GeForce are completely different, but saying a Radeon is not EVEN a GeForce, as if they were supposed to be, is wrong.
Power management is up to the individual firm, my analogy would be that not all chocolate ice cream tastes the same, they are all chocolate but the final product can vary from manufacturer.
Again, Krait and A15 are two different cores which only share the same instruction set, in other words, they can run the same programs but their architecture are completely different.
Your complaint about the market share is also down to numerous factors but mindshare is a hard thing to break. An example of mindshare would be 'Retina Display' which is not related to any technical metric, however its often associated with the minimum pixel density where the pixels can no longer be seen. People are stuck behind this artificial wall because of perception, it doesnt however make it the best display. Just the ones that people want because of mindshare. Likewise for SoCs... the S800 is in the Snapdragon family, and because they the 'Snapdragon' broke the GHz barrier for smartphones they continue to own mindshares, it isnt to say its a bad SoC its just an old design people dont seem to grasp this. There was a time not too long ago you could only find OMAP chips in smart devices, to the point where TI owned the market in a similar way, where are OMAP chips today?
My point exactly, you said Qualcomm have only mindshare and market share in it's favor. If that is what explains their succcess, then how come Tegra (which were the first dualcore, and then the first quadcore, present in the Surface and Nexus 7) have seen it's sales slow down this much? THey had the mind share and the market share but they aren't succesful.
Qualcomm was not the first to 28nm for the mobile market, thats just blatantly false. TI had OMAP at 28nm in 2010. Qualcomm had test chips out in mid 2011 I believe..
The only chip from TI that was supposed to be 28nm was the OMAP5, which was never produced. The latest OMAP is based on 40nm.
Intel is the first to 14nm, TSMC is at 20nm and may struggle to keep up, the reports say that there are some yield issues, which they will overcome. Samsung is rumored to have skipped the 20nm process in favor for the FinFet 14nm process.
All we have seen are roadmaps, we haven't seen a single, commercial product based on 14nm, only 22nm from Intel for now.
Going to another node, "is not an idea" im confused by your rebuttal.. its a billion dollar decision, and in order to succesfully produce tens of millions of cpus it takes a lot of brilliant people.. It is a competitive decision, but technology needs to move forward, i dont see a reason to oppose it.
What i meant is that it is too vague to be considered an idea. It's obvious going to smaller nodes is always better.
Chandrasekher has not resigned, unless my news is old, he was reassigned. Still reports to the same ppl.
I made mistake, I actually meant that he was reassigned. And that proves that everybody at Qualcomm disagrees with him about 64bits.
Like you said, the Samsung family of SoCs are on par with apple because they make them for apple. Your assumption about the whole Exynos 5 family is misplaced. the 5420 is a monstrous CPU that technically performance wise (it would burn you like the sun) is an order higher than the S800. Remember that the S800 Krait Cores are based pre-A15 architecture (ARM had not finalized the designing, Q pushed forward). The 5420 is four A15 and four A7's (updated version of the A8), because Samsungs manufacturing process matured over 2013 they corrected the issues from the 5410, and allowed for CCI/HMP. Simply put it sits atop the S800 but remains shackled and there are several limiting factors, namely the software and Samsungs unwillingness to release kernel information regarding the processor itself. Power management from Q however is second to none, that is ALL them too, as no one else in the industry has achieved the battery life or the charging speed of the S800.
Actually, there have been a misunderstanding. Only S800 is on par with Apple. Once again, Krait is not pre-A15. How can it be pre-A15 when it is as fast but more power efficient? In other words, how can a pre-A15 be better than a A15?
How come S800 have far, far more design wins than Tegra 4? Have you looked at benchmarks? Only the actively cooled Shield is competitive, but that is rellevant as you should compare it with actively cooled S800.
my point was Q has not released their plan yet
S800 updated with (among other things) Adreno 400 with DirectX 11 and H265 decode. But yeah it's a leak (although confirmed) and not announced.
The future is bright!
At least we agreed on something.
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 13:15:29
Edit :
Quote
@karim128
haha ( my ninja ) should delete his membership from Esato forums ..
>
[ This Message was edited by: XperiaCute on 2013-11-11 14:00 ]
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 15:00:05
Edit :
Quote
Lets see now and gather our knowledge and power to see next years SoC options for Sony
It's logical Sony will go for Qualcomm and MediaTek as Sony now uses both makers SoC for their phone but high-end devices and also most mid-range devices uses Qualcomm SoC only as MediaTek doesn't have high-end SoC and also Qualcomm SoC are mature enough for high-end devices...
So it's logically that Sony will go to Qualcomm for their next high-end... the leaked info suggest that we will have two options in 1H14 flagship (Z2) and 2H14 flagship (Z3) naming is just by me to simplify which phone we mean...
APQ8074
Quadcore Krait @2.3GHz
Dual Channel 800MHz LPDDR3
WiFi a/b/g/n/ac
USB 3.0
4K, 2K @30fps playback for H264 & VP8 codecs
1080p @120fps playback
1080p @60fps dual view ( 3D )
4K, 2K @30fps encoding in H264 & VP8 codecs
1080p @120fps encoding in H264, MP4 & VP8 codecs
Dual 1080p @60fps encoding ( 3D )
30MP single camera, 12MP stereo3D
Adreno 330 GPU : OpenGL ES 3.0, ES 2.0, ES 1.1, OpenCL 1.2e, DX 9.3… 3600 Mpx/s pixel fill rate
Adreno 330 should add 30% more performance compared to Adreno 320 found in current APQ8064 & MSM8960Pro
APQ8084
Same as APQ8074 but I'll summerize the changes
Dual Channel 800MHz LPDDR3 + Dual Channel 933MHz DDR3/3L
2x USB3.0 & 2x USB 2.0
H. 265 decoding ( playpack )
Adreno 420 GPU : Same as Adreno 330 but adds OpenCL 1.2 full profile, DX 11.1, DX 11.1 compute, 4000 Mpx/s pixel fill rate
Adreno 420 doesn't have any relative performance measurement yet in the leaks so we don't know...
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 15:11:07
Edit :
Quote
APQ8074 is actually worse than what we have inside the Z1 today, it is just an MSM8074 without the modem, for tablets for example.
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 15:24:59
Edit :
Quote
There was a rumor about a Z Ultra size tablet from sony right, can happen. I would also like to see it first with the JDI 2560X1440 panels. I just hope they would get rid of the fancy touch screen tech and go with a standard panel and shrink the bezel a bit and with maybe something like s pen. If the price is right I would get it.
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 15:30:26
Edit :
Quote
I hope the Pen display tech on ZUltra will develop further and include pressure sensitivity as well
It's about time that Sony would make their Note 8/10.1 killer with that tech
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 15:44:44
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-11-11 11:36:32, Xajel wrote:
I completely agree with your post, i dont think i was disagreeing with you but Karim, so save for the last comment that mediatek was the first octa.. the 5420 is already on the market. Unless ive misunderstood their product.
On 2013-11-11 13:15:29, karim128 wrote:
Qualcomm designed their own chips based around the ARMv7 architecture. The Krait CPU from Q is based on an EARLY version of the A15 before it was finalized. It is a 28nm processor.
ARMv7 is an instruction set, not an architecture (huge difference, for instance AMD and Intel have the same instruction set but their architectures are completey different.) And Krait have been designed by Qualcomm around the same instruction set, and is completely unrelated from A15. At least you recognized that you made a mistake when you said that their node is several generation behind 28nm.
These companies license the architecture and design their own individual SoC AROUND their custom ARM CPUs.
Each company have the choice to either licence the architecture (like nVidia and Samsung who are using A15) or to licence only the instruction set and design their own, custom core compatible with ARM's own CPU out there. Qualcomm and Apple licenced the instruction set and designed their processor completely independantly from ARM.
Intel fabrication is at 14nm (2 fabrication nodes below the S800 @ 28nm, 20nm being the middle step between the two).
Intel haven't released yet any processor based on 14nm.
Your analogy between ATI and NVIDIA for graphics cards is inapplicable here for this discussion as its irrelevant to the points that were being made. false dichotomy.
Then you didn't get my point. You said Krait isn't even an A15, while Krait and A15 are completely unrelated architecture-wise and have been designed by two different companies. So that makes as much sense as saying a Radeon isn't EVEN a GeForce. We all know Radeon and GeForce are completely different, but saying a Radeon is not EVEN a GeForce, as if they were supposed to be, is wrong.
Power management is up to the individual firm, my analogy would be that not all chocolate ice cream tastes the same, they are all chocolate but the final product can vary from manufacturer.
Again, Krait and A15 are two different cores which only share the same instruction set, in other words, they can run the same programs but their architecture are completely different.
Your complaint about the market share is also down to numerous factors but mindshare is a hard thing to break. An example of mindshare would be 'Retina Display' which is not related to any technical metric, however its often associated with the minimum pixel density where the pixels can no longer be seen. People are stuck behind this artificial wall because of perception, it doesnt however make it the best display. Just the ones that people want because of mindshare. Likewise for SoCs... the S800 is in the Snapdragon family, and because they the 'Snapdragon' broke the GHz barrier for smartphones they continue to own mindshares, it isnt to say its a bad SoC its just an old design people dont seem to grasp this. There was a time not too long ago you could only find OMAP chips in smart devices, to the point where TI owned the market in a similar way, where are OMAP chips today?
My point exactly, you said Qualcomm have only mindshare and market share in it's favor. If that is what explains their succcess, then how come Tegra (which were the first dualcore, and then the first quadcore, present in the Surface and Nexus 7) have seen it's sales slow down this much? THey had the mind share and the market share but they aren't succesful.
Qualcomm was not the first to 28nm for the mobile market, thats just blatantly false. TI had OMAP at 28nm in 2010. Qualcomm had test chips out in mid 2011 I believe..
The only chip from TI that was supposed to be 28nm was the OMAP5, which was never produced. The latest OMAP is based on 40nm.
Intel is the first to 14nm, TSMC is at 20nm and may struggle to keep up, the reports say that there are some yield issues, which they will overcome. Samsung is rumored to have skipped the 20nm process in favor for the FinFet 14nm process.
All we have seen are roadmaps, we haven't seen a single, commercial product based on 14nm, only 22nm from Intel for now.
Going to another node, "is not an idea" im confused by your rebuttal.. its a billion dollar decision, and in order to succesfully produce tens of millions of cpus it takes a lot of brilliant people.. It is a competitive decision, but technology needs to move forward, i dont see a reason to oppose it.
What i meant is that it is too vague to be considered an idea. It's obvious going to smaller nodes is always better.
Chandrasekher has not resigned, unless my news is old, he was reassigned. Still reports to the same ppl.
I made mistake, I actually meant that he was reassigned. And that proves that everybody at Qualcomm disagrees with him about 64bits.
Like you said, the Samsung family of SoCs are on par with apple because they make them for apple. Your assumption about the whole Exynos 5 family is misplaced. the 5420 is a monstrous CPU that technically performance wise (it would burn you like the sun) is an order higher than the S800. Remember that the S800 Krait Cores are based pre-A15 architecture (ARM had not finalized the designing, Q pushed forward). The 5420 is four A15 and four A7's (updated version of the A8), because Samsungs manufacturing process matured over 2013 they corrected the issues from the 5410, and allowed for CCI/HMP. Simply put it sits atop the S800 but remains shackled and there are several limiting factors, namely the software and Samsungs unwillingness to release kernel information regarding the processor itself. Power management from Q however is second to none, that is ALL them too, as no one else in the industry has achieved the battery life or the charging speed of the S800.
Actually, there have been a misunderstanding. Only S800 is on par with Apple. Once again, Krait is not pre-A15. How can it be pre-A15 when it is as fast but more power efficient? In other words, how can a pre-A15 be better than a A15?
How come S800 have far, far more design wins than Tegra 4? Have you looked at benchmarks? Only the actively cooled Shield is competitive, but that is rellevant as you should compare it with actively cooled S800.
my point was Q has not released their plan yet
S800 updated with (among other things) Adreno 400 with DirectX 11 and H265 decode. But yeah it's a leak (although confirmed) and not announced.
The future is bright!
At least we agreed on something.
Thank you again for your response.
My apologies on the ARMv7 in-congruence, like i said i dont take any time to edit this post.. but its clear you understand.
ARM is a holding company, and yes other firms are allowed to use their designs or instruction set with their own proprietary design.
I am fairly certain that Intel will be releasing 14nm next year.. The foundries necessary have already switched over to this node. So yes there are no products yet but we should see them shortly, and we dont know of any other firm that is there yet (we have conjecture about Samsung which i touched on.. but nothing definitive). That is still 2 nodes ahead of Q S800, remember Q hasnt shown anything so we are in the dark from this perspective on how far along they are with a new process.
The ARM reference is the A15, Krait falls below this reference point because of what reason? they designed their own chip, based on what ARM had at the time, their goal was to get a family of SoCs to market ASAP for mind.market share, this 'rush' paid off as they are assumed to be the only/best player for mobile SoCs. Again your comparison i dont think particularly suits this discussion.. could just be me however.
You keep trying to say that NVIDIA had market share, I think they were in one relevant device in the past 3 years... that is not a good example. I tried to share one with OMAP (the SoC family in general) because they had favorable mind.market share NVIDIA was never comparable to that.. they are for all intents irrelevant. TI lost out due to a SoC that would be ripped apart today wrt the original SD 1GHz SoC.. (much how the maligned 5410 was lamented for not being a homogenous 8 core cpu) I will have to re-read but i believe that there was some 'funny business' with how the SoC used its '1GHz' again its been about 5/6 years so Ill have to research that for you.. (this may be dubious, but its sticking in my mind right now for some reason) I could just be thinking that the OMAP at the time was a better SoC..
I think that TI ran into some issues with the OMAP5 design/production, they announced that it would be their last but i thought it made it into some products, if what you say is true, i guess they didnt. so i think they chose to refocus elsewhere.
Broadwell is a commercial product.. its 14nm itll be here in a few months. Yes not _NOW_ but thats a little nitpicky.. we are discussing minutia though so i understand your sentiment.
Chandrasekher is an idiot, we all agree. He is a marketer, he would be the last to know anything testified to the fact that he should not have spoken out of turn..
Better is subjective.. Its (S800) an earlier design based around reference data from ARM. Defining it by saying its better than a younger product is difficult for me to agree with because our reference is based around archaic software restrictions. (K3.4 vs anything that can fully support HMP through bigLITTLE, and 64bit instruction which would be K3.10) all things being equal, running 3.10 i doubt that the S800 would be able to keep up.. it may last longer in the day (also extremely relevant in the mobile space, but may not necessarily be the primary focus of this discussion, unless im reading your sentiment incorrectly)
Benchmarks.. in this space of mobile SoCs, has a massive ball and chain around the HW and Snapdragon has maximized performance under this 'artificial' handicap. Google here needs to get in gear here i blame them..
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the new S800 is still v7.. take that as you will.
@XperiaCute, thank you for the suggestion.. but ive been here for nearly 10 years. friendly discussions without bashing and name calling is one of the reasons that i like this board over others.. proper discourse without it devolving..
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 16:02:09
Edit :
Quote
So that metal frame looks like its for a normal sized Z1 and not anything smaller, can anyone do the maths please? The stuff that is being announced tomorrow, will it be available straight away or later? My friends say that the Z1F is better than the Z1 because of the screen being smaller thus improving performance and battery life. I'm really looking forward to a powerhouse at this size and have my fingers crossed for better camera optimisation.
--
Posted: 2013-11-11 16:03:52
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Topic Locked
