Slashdot Mirror
AnandTech Reviews Samsung's Exynos 9810 SoC (and Galaxy S9) (anandtech.com)
The Galaxy S9 and S9+, the flagship smartphones from the South Korean electronics manufacturer Samsung are powered by company's homegrown Exynos 9810 SoC (in most markets) or Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 SoC. In its review of Samsung Galaxy S9, AnandTech comments on the differences it observed on the S9 model powered by Samsung's own SoC and the variant with Qualcomm's processor. From the review: Finally, the biggest story for the Galaxy S9 is its big contrast in terms of SoC hardware. Ever since we first heard about the Exynos 9810 we had very large expectations and we knew there would be some tangible differences between Exynos and Snapdragon variants. The expectations couldn't be more shattered than the results we got. While the Snapdragon 845 variant of the Galaxy S9 performed largely as advertised and as we had been told to expect by Qualcomm, the Exynos 9810 failed to live up to its hype in real-world scenarios. Effectively, the Exynos 9810 variant and as evidenced by all the data we collected, is the slower variant of the two. The root cause here has been identified as the extremely conservative scheduler and DVFS mechanisms which essentially nullify any advantage the new M3 cores have in synthetic benchmarks.
In 3D benchmarks, the Exynos 9810 posted very healthy efficiency improvements and even sometimes managed to catch up to last year's Adreno 540 -- something I hadn't expected. Qualcomm's new Adreno 630 raises the bar in terms of peak performance, however the promises of increased efficiency have not materialised in the commercial hardware as the performance boost comes at a cost of increased power. Effectively, when looking at sustained workloads, the Snapdragon 845 isn't any faster than the Snapdragon 835 in its GPU department. Fortunately for Qualcomm, they're still in the lead and this is not a deal-breaker for the Galaxy S9. While the performance advantage of the Snapdragon 845 variant over the Exynos 9810 variant is something we could live with, the battery life results of the Exynos is definitely a deal-breaker.
In 3D benchmarks, the Exynos 9810 posted very healthy efficiency improvements and even sometimes managed to catch up to last year's Adreno 540 -- something I hadn't expected. Qualcomm's new Adreno 630 raises the bar in terms of peak performance, however the promises of increased efficiency have not materialised in the commercial hardware as the performance boost comes at a cost of increased power. Effectively, when looking at sustained workloads, the Snapdragon 845 isn't any faster than the Snapdragon 835 in its GPU department. Fortunately for Qualcomm, they're still in the lead and this is not a deal-breaker for the Galaxy S9. While the performance advantage of the Snapdragon 845 variant over the Exynos 9810 variant is something we could live with, the battery life results of the Exynos is definitely a deal-breaker.
There are two companies I will NEVER buy a cellphone from, Apple and Samsung. The tech world would be better off without either of them.
I disagree; whereas, I think Apple and Samsung are overpriced for what they are, they help spur on innovations in other phone manufacturers. I probably won't buy an Apple or a Samsung again personally, but I hope to benefit from their competition in the market driving new features.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
There are two companies I will NEVER buy a cellphone from, Apple and Samsung. The tech world would be better off without either of them.
I simply will not own a cellphone. Not even a "dumb" cellphone.
I also don't wear a tracking tag in my ear like some captured-and-released animal on "Animal Planet" and for the same reasons because cellphones are used by government for the same reasons.
" Fortunately for Qualcomm, they're still in the lead "....err....ahem.
There are two companies I will NEVER buy a cellphone from, Apple and Samsung. The tech world would be better off without either of them.
I simply will not own a cellphone. Not even a "dumb" cellphone.
I also don't wear a tracking tag in my ear like some captured-and-released animal on "Animal Planet" and for the same reasons because cellphones are used by government for the same reasons.
Is there a point to this comment, beyond fulfilling your need to declare yourself a Luddite? You forgot to mention being vegan.
Mortal Kombat on Sega Genesis, is the best video game ever.
I disagree, it's a very good game, but I think Donkey Kong is the best game ever.
Donkey Kong sucks.
You know something? YOU SUCK!
Ever wondered why Samsung wastes time putting two different chips in their flagship phone? Isn't that a huge waste of time, money resources? Developing two completely different products internally?
It is!
So why?
Qualcomm. Qualcomm literally forces Samsung to ship their SoCs in their phones because they hold a near-monopoly on high-end cell modems. No Snapdragon in the S9? Well.. It would be terrible if you didn't have enough modems to meet your sales targets, wouldn't it?
Paints that fight Apple has with Qualcomm in a more interesting light, doesn't it?
Why do people buy these expensive phones? Status symbols?
the strange thing is that samsung makes 3/4 of the iphone, yet apple "innovates" :rolleyes: .... strange
that's......
...as well as an atheist crossfitter.
But you’ll post about all this on the Internet that is heavily surveilled by the government and your ISP that will give them access to all your information and browsing history without a warrant? Ok, bro...
Apple design it, Samsung fabs it. What's to to be confused about?
I'd buy a $100 Samsung phone because that's the market segment I'm in. There's nothing I do that requires a $700 phone and the cheapest Apple makes is the iPhone SE for $350.
the strange thing is that samsung makes 3/4 of the iphone, yet apple "innovates"
No, what is strange is seeing people state stupid things such as your post. Also, fabbing something that someone is designs is not “making” it. Most of the components in an iPhone are not made from Samsung. Just reading an iFixit iPhone teardown would disprove your ludicrous claim.
How do you quantify 3/4s of the phone? The last time I checked Samsung might make a few components but not 3/4 of it. Also that's like saying Ford/Honda/Toyota is made 3/4s from US Steel yet car manufacturers "innovate".
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
apple designing? ....We design....
let's see
Apple engineer: Mr. Cucks, we need an L-shaped 2800mAh
Mr. Cucks: Ayo, hol' up, I got the latest product catalog from alibaba.... hmmm... that's tough, erm call 011-86-12345679 and order 20k batteries, page 27, second from the bottom.
Apple engineer: Ok, Mr Cucks.
Mr. Cucks on stage:
you don't get that the one who makes the product has to overcome all the engineering obstacles in order make the product that the guy with a drawing board drew.
inb4 "do you know how difficult is to draw an L-shapped battery?"
P.S.: don't tell me that they design the A10 soc, they just bought the company PA semi on 2008 and that's what their "design" team consists of, purchased companies. I am not that paranoid to ask the uber-company to have foundries to make their socs or mines to mine materials for their batteries, but come on they just order off the self components that's why the least % of their revenue in R&D.
How do you quantify 3/4s of the phone? The last time I checked Samsung might make a few components but not 3/4 of it. Also that's like saying Ford/Honda/Toyota is made 3/4s from US Steel yet car manufacturers "innovate".
If those furnaces are outputing car chassis, they innovate.
there's a great book "how to analogy". you should read it.
I won't give any more money to Samsung after they force-patched my television to add ads on the menu bar. I returned it, and won't have anything more to do with them.
If those furnaces are outputing car chassis, they innovate.
Again by your logic, car makers don't do any innovation, steel makers do because they made the steel even if all the steelmakers do is make the steel.
there's a great book "how to analogy". you should read it.
Please answer the 3/4s question: How do you quantify 3/4s of an iPhone was made by Samsung when at best the CPU was made by Samsung in the past. If we look at the chips in the iPhone not even 10% of them by count was made by Samsung and that's if Samsung supplied the memory chips.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
P.S.: don't tell me that they design the A10 soc, they just bought the company PA semi on 2008 and that's what their "design" team consists of, purchased companies
When Apple bought PA Semi in 2008, PA Semi worked on different architectures but was known for their Power processors. So by your assertion, magically somehow Apple acquired their knowledge on how to design ARM processors from a company they acquired 8 years ago who worked primarily on Power processors. You do know that ARM designs from ARM themselves 8 years ago are nothing like ARM designs today, right?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Follow the crowd
advertising through me
consumerism...unable to see
come quickly for your s9
your life will not change but
the fantasy is sublime.
don't tell me that they design the A10 soc, they just bought the company PA semi on 2008 and that's what their "design" team consists of,
Samsung has bought companies too. So have plenty of other semiconductor companies. To say that that means the buyer company doesn’t design the product is the height of stupidity.