Qualcomm this week has announced three new chipsets complementing their low-mid-range and low-range processor offerings: the Snapdragon 720G, 662, and 460 SoCs. The new chipsets are said to focus on emerging markets such as India and are also amongst the first to offer platform connectivity features such as the new Navigation with Indian Constellation (NavIC).

Qualcomm Snapdragon 700-Range SoCs
SoC Snapdragon 710 Snapdragon 720G Snapdragon 730
CPU 2x Kryo 360 (CA75)
@ 2.2GHz 

6x Kryo 360 (CA55)
@ 1.7GHz
2x Kryo 465 (CA76)
@ 2.3GHz
 
6x Kryo 465 (CA55)
@ 1.8GHz
2x Kryo 470 (CA76)
@ 2.2GHz
 
6x Kryo 470 (CA55)
@ 1.8GHz
GPU Adreno 616 Adreno 618
DSP Hexagon 685  Hexagon 692 Hexagon 688
ISP/
Camera
Spectra 250
32MP single / 20MP dual
Spectra 350L
32MP single / 16MP dual
Spectra 350
36MP single / 22MP dual
Memory 2x 16-bit @ 1866MHz
LPDDR4X
14.9GB/s

1MB system cache
Integrated Modem Snapdragon X15 LTE
(Category 15/13)
DL = 800Mbps
3x20MHz CA, 256-QAM

UL = 150Mbps
2x20MHz CA, 64-QAM
Encode/
Decode
2160p30, 1080p120
H.264 & H.265

10-bit HDR pipelines
Mfc. Process 10nm LPP 8nm LPP

Starting off with the Snapdragon 720G, the first we note that the features of the SoC looks extremely similar to the Snapdragon 730. We never had a regular Snapdragon 720 so it’s a bit weird for Qualcomm to directly come out with a “G” version which is usually used for denominating a better GPU / gaming binned variant of an SoC.

The Snapdragon 720G shares the same feature set as the Snapdragon 730, but comes with an extra 100MHz boost on the big cores. Other small differences between the two SoCs is Qualcomm’s description of it using a newer Hexagon 692 DSP as opposed to the 688 variant in the S730.

All in all, whilst this should be a new silicon design, in practice it feels more of a stepping variant of the Snapdragon 730.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 600-Range SoCs
SoC Snapdragon 660 Snapdragon 662 Snapdragon 665 Snapdragon 670 Snapdragon 675
CPU 4x Kryo 260 (CA73)
@ 2.2GHz

4x Kryo 260 (CA53)
@ 1.8GHz
4x Kryo 260 (CA73)
@ 2.0GHz

4x Kryo 260 (CA53)
@ 1.8GHz
4x Kryo 260 (CA73)
@ 2.0GHz

4x Kryo 260 (CA53)
@ 1.8GHz
2x Kryo 360 (CA75)
@ 2.0GHz 

6x Kryo 360 (CA55)
@ 1.7GHz
2x Kryo 460 (CA76)
@ 2.0GHz
 
6x Kryo 460 (CA55)
@ 1.7GHz
GPU Adreno 512 Adreno 610 Adreno 615 Adreno 612
DSP Hexagon 680  Hexagon 683  Hexagon 686  Hexagon 685 
ISP/
Camera
Spectra 160
24MP
Spectra 340T
25MP single / 16MP dual
Spectra 165
25MP single / 16MP dual
Spectra 250
25MP single / 16MP dual
Spectra 250
25MP single / 16MP dual
Memory 2x 16-bit @ 1866MHz
LPDDR4
14.9GB/s
2x 16-bit @ 1866MHz
LPDDR4X
14.9GB/s

1MB system cache
Integrated Modem Snapdragon X12 LTE Snapdragon X11 LTE
(Cat 12/13)

DL = 390Mbps
2x20MHz CA, 256-QAM

UL = 150Mbps
2x20MHz CA, 64-QAM
Snapdragon X12 LTE

(Category 12/13)

DL = 600Mbps
3x20MHz CA, 256-QAM

UL = 150Mbps
2x20MHz CA, 64-QAM
Encode/
Decode
2160p30, 1080p120
H.264 & H.265
1080p60
H.264 & H.265
2160p30, 1080p120
H.264 & H.265
Mfc. Process 14nm LPP 11nm LPP 11nm LPP 10nm LPP 11nm LPP

In the Snapdragon 600 range we’ve seen a ton of releases over the last few years, which makes the new Snapdragon 662 even more weird in terms of how it’s positioned in the market. A lot like the S720G situation, the new S662 looks extremely similar to the Snapdragon 665.

The CPU and GPU configuration is said to be identical between the two chips, but then there’s some differing features such as a Spectra 340T ISP instead of a Spectra 165, as well as a Hexagon 683 versus a Hexagon 686. Admittedly, Qualcomm’s marketing naming here doesn’t necessarily mean there’s actual IP changes in the SoC, but it’s not the first time we’ve seen Qualcomm tape out almost identical SKUs over time.

A more notable difference in capabilities is in the media features as the S662 is only able to do 1080p60 video as opposed to 4K30 on the S665, as well as having a slightly worse X11 modem which can only do 2x carrier aggregation as opposed to 3x for the S665 X12 based modem.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 400-Range SoCs
SoC Snapdragon 439 Snapdragon 450 Snapdragon 460
CPU 4x CA53
@ 2.2GHz 

4x CA53
@ 1.7GHz
8x CA53
@ 2.3GHz
4x Kryo 240 (CA73)
@ 1.8GHz
 
4x Kryo 240 (CA53)
@ ?GHz
GPU Adreno 505 Adreno 506 Adreno 610
DSP Hexagon 536 Hexagon 546 Hexagon 683
ISP/
Camera
Spectra 
21MP single / 8MP dual
Spectra 
21MP single / 13MP dual
Spectra 340
36MP single / 22MP dual
Memory 1x 32-bit @ 933MHz
LPDDR3
7.4GB/s
2x 16-bit @ 1866MHz
LPDDR4X
14.9GB/s
Integrated Modem Snapdragon X6 LTE
(Category 4/5)

DL = 150Mbps
2x10MHz CA, 64-QAM

UL = 75Mbps
1x10MHz CA, 64-QAM
Snapdragon X9 LTE
(Category 7/13)

DL = 300Mbps
2x20MHz CA, 64-QAM

UL = 150Mbps
2x10MHz CA, 64-QAM
Snapdragon X11 LTE
(Cat 12/13)

DL = 390Mbps
2x20MHz CA, 256-QAM

UL = 150Mbps
2x20MHz CA, 64-QAM
Encode/
Decode
1080p30
H.264
1080p60
H.264 & H.265
Mfc. Process 12nm LPP 14nm LPP 11nm LPP

Actually, the biggest news this week was the announcement of the Snapdragon 460. Unlike the less exciting 720G and 662, the 460 represents a big leap over its predecessors, finally representing a major upgrade to the 2017 Snapdragon 450.

The Snapdragon 460 for the first time now brings big CPU cores into the 400-range which should be almost a 2x increase in performance over past series chipsets. Qualcomm here is making use of 4x Cortex A73 derived CPUs at up to 1.8GHz, alongside 4x A53 derived CPUs at an undisclosed clock (likely a similar 1.8GHz).

The GPU sees a big upgrade in transitioning to the 600 Adreno series with the Adreno 610, and Qualcomm is quoting a 60-70% performance uplift compared to the Snapdragon 450.

The new chip also now for the first time support LPDDR4X, doubling up on the available bandwidth in this low-range of SoCs. The new chipset is manufactured on a Samsung 11LPP process node, which should be a nice efficiency upgrade over the 14nm process of the S450.

Devices based on the Snapdragon 720G are expected to be available this quarter, while 662 and 460 devices are expected towards the end of 2020.

Related Reading:

POST A COMMENT

27 Comments

View All Comments

  • fred666 - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link

    Is such a high core count a good idea for these mid/low range SoC?
    Wouldn't it be better to have only 2-4 good cores instead?
    Reply
  • Dragonstongue - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link

    or better yet, some high some mid and some very low core speed
    to keep power use minimal as possible

    would make too much sense apparently. the phone makers always seem to want keep battery size a year or 2 back in capacity, least that can be done is ensure the compute power is harnessed IMO

    this way things can truly sit in background barely use any power (example 500-800Mhz instead of in the Ghz range) and when need the actual performance a few ms later the fast cores come alive to burst the workload up.

    seeing as the current slew of phones are dime a dozen (not) they all (the makers) should be just as concerned about saving them from going to trash bin as they are about plopping new ones on the shelf with stupidly small batteries attached to high spec components (that do not sip power)
    Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link

    Advertising.
    4 cores looks better than 2 cores on the box.
    Reply
  • Kangal - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link

    In terms of product segments, it goes like this (from worst to best):

    Entry Level (<$100, 1GB RAM, 16GB NAND, 480p Screen**)
    Sorry, not going to bother listing any!

    Low-end (~$100, 2GB RAM, 32GB NAND, 720p Screen**)
    QSD 439, 450, 625, 626, 630

    Midrange (~$200, 4GB RAM, 64GB NAND, 1080p Screen**)
    QSD 632, 636, 460, 662, 665, 670, 660

    High-end (~$300, 6GB RAM, 128GB NAND, +1080p Screen**)
    QSD 675, 710, 712, 730, 720, 765

    Flagship / Luxury (>$500, 8GB RAM, 256GB NAND, +1440p Screen**)
    QSD 835, 845, 855, 865
    **specs and prices are just a rough guide, duh!

    As was said, it's about Marketing and Pricing.
    Qualcomm has been a big loser in the chipset marketshare from 2018-2019, mainly, as other vendors have decided to compete harder, such as, Samsung Exynos, HiSilicon Kirin, MediaTek.

    And while Qualcomm can retake that marketshare back easily, it will come at reduced profit-margins, and affects their future plans. Right now, they're in the "defensive phase" which means they will imitate Intel and try to obfuscate their products as much as possible. This is to confuse the market, companies, and consumers... in order to maintain the status-quo that they are still "the best". Usually, the leading competitor or ethical companies will do the opposite and try to make their offerings as simple as possible, see AMD. It is no secret that there are product segments and stacks in the industry. Despite Qualcomm's best efforts, usually the knowledgeable enthusiasts such as myself and Anandtech can tread through the muddy waters and figure out where each chipset is placed, as shown above.

    If you disagree, just see the history of the chipsets:

    OLDEST: QSD 617, QSD 650, QSD 653, QSD 835
    OLDER: QSD 625, QSD 636, QSD 712, QSD 845
    NEWER: QSD 630, QSD 665, QSD 730, QSD 855
    COMING: QSD 460, QSD 670, QSD 765, QSD 865
    Reply
  • flyingpants265 - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link

    SD845 and SD855 phones are available for $300/$400. Obviously we can safely ignore the $900+ options Reply
  • Kangal - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link

    True, that we have seen those.
    But those are moreso "upper midrange" phones with the "luxury" processors. We used to call that segment the "flagship killer". They don't compare against true flagship phones.

    I also wanted to post a link to a previous comment I made. It's basically a list of all Android ARM SoC's between 2011 and 2019, and it is listed from worst to best based on their properties (single-core performance, multi-thread performance, graphics performance, and battery life properties). I know there's a couple few extra Snapdragon chipsets that were released afterwards, the latest Apple chipset, two Kirin chipsets, and a handful of new Exynos chipsets that are missing from the list. But overall, it's a pretty decent list in terms of accuracy and amount of chipsets, so here it is:
    https://www.gsmarena.com/newscomm-38594p5.php
    Reply
  • eek2121 - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link

    Qualcomm basically owns the market in the US. The only other major player is Apple. Reply
  • PeachNCream - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link

    I think pricing is more important that specifications. As long as Qualcomm can hit the right price bracket with an eight core SoC (and power consumption target), then why not sell one for low end phones? Reply
  • fred666 - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link

    It's always a matter of compromise. If they put 4 cores instead of 8, each core could be faster (price and power consumption being equal). Reply
  • Spunjji - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link

    That's the answer - they wouldn't be equal. Price would be higher and power consumption would be higher, both of which are killers for low-end devices. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now

时时彩骗局