4 ms·

What is it with these companies putting the latest SnapDragon CPUs in their mobile devices? No one cares about CPU performance. I've got a SD820 now in my Axon

What is it with these companies putting the latest SnapDragon CPUs in their mobile devices? No one cares about CPU performance. I've got a SD820 now in my Axon 7, and I can tell you there is 0 difference with a SD625 in daily use. Except that the SD625 is cheaper and has an incredible battery life. The only company realising that people care about UX in stead of specs seems to be Xiaomi. Consistently choosing SD625 and SD660 for their phones, because it is clear that any CPU can pull a phone. And let's be honest. No one cares about mobile VR. I'll take SD625 and 5000mAh battery over SD835 and 6GB RAM any day.

morsch 9y ago
I had a Xiaomi Mi 4i which had a SD615, thinking "how bad can it be". Turns out, it was painfully slow to use; no match at all to the vanilla Mi 4 with a SD801. Maybe the current generation is different, but I got a Mi 5 (SD820) and haven't looked back. The battery life is fine, enough to last a full day with lots of spare capacity.
piyush_soni 9y ago
- "And let's be honest. No one cares about a camera phone" - "And let's be honest. No one cares about having 2 GB RAM on a phone" - "And let's be honest. No one cares about <any new technology>" New processors are not only 'faster' but also more energy efficient, which is an equally (or more) important thing especially now when we've reached high speeds even in basic (/cheap) smartphones. As long as they're not going backwards, I don't see a reason why these companies should not go with them.
- apexalpha 9y ago
  I don't think that is a fair response. 1) Camera's had proven use and adoption before being mounted on mobile computers. RAM has been ever increasing since the inception of it. 2) My comment should be seen in a timeframe. When I say no one needs 6GB RAM, there is an implied 'in 2017' added to that. Otherwise every discussion about hardware could be killed with you argument. >As long as they're not going backwards, I don't see a reason why these companies should not go with them. The question is: which one do you choose to put in your phone now. Knowing Android, knowing the other specs of the phone and knowing what kind of apps people use. In that case: I think the SD835 is overkill for 99% of people. That last 1% being people who want the fastest simply _because_ it is the fastest, or who play the most advanced mobile games / VR. Those people are a very small subset of all smartphone users. 1% might be too much.
  - piyush_soni 9y ago
    As I said, I'd choose SD835 simply because it's more energy efficient even if the speed improvement is insignificant (even though it is not), and for most people more battery saving is a very welcome improvement. Moreover, it's not just that. Here's what's new in SD835 besides being 'faster' - - Around 25% less power consumption - Quick Charge 4 (up to 25% faster charging than Quick Charge 3) - Faster, more reliable and efficient Wireless (Gigabit LTE) - Bluetooth 5.0 support (significantly better than BLE 4.*) - Inbuilt Dual camera support and Electronic Image Stabilization version 3.0 for much better shake free videos. - Considerably smaller size so that phone makers can fit more 'stuff' inside. - And more ... All of these features are quite important to me. Of course, we'll have to see how these numbers turn up in real life, but to say it's an overkill for most people is equivalent to saying any new phone with new features is an overkill.
- tertius 9y ago
  Like physical keyboards.
clouddrover 9y ago
> No one cares about CPU performance. I think you'd care if you're running full Windows 10 for ARM on it. That would function as a laptop replacement and in the desktop usage scenario you'd care about performance.
Steko 9y ago
> No one cares about CPU performance. Huh, everyone cares how fast they browse the web. 835 trounces the 625 in JS/web benchmarks by a factor of 2-3 or more: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11201/Snapdragon_835-Web-Kraken.png http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11201/Snapdragon_835... That's Mozilla's benchmark. The Moto Z Play on the bottom is the only phone on the list with a 625. Its score would have been good in 2013.
ajdlinux 9y ago
As someone who's still using his Nexus 5 and seeing it get slower and slower as app bloat increases... I care, because I know the app bloat isn't going away.

morsch 9y ago

I had a Xiaomi Mi 4i which had a SD615, thinking "how bad can it be". Turns out, it was painfully slow to use; no match at all to the vanilla Mi 4 with a SD801. Maybe the current generation is different, but I got a Mi 5 (SD820) and haven't looked back. The battery life is fine, enough to last a full day with lots of spare capacity.

piyush_soni 9y ago

- "And let's be honest. No one cares about a camera phone" - "And let's be honest. No one cares about having 2 GB RAM on a phone" - "And let's be honest. No one cares about <any new technology>" New processors are not only 'faster' but also more energy efficient, which is an equally (or more) important thing especially now when we've reached high speeds even in basic (/cheap) smartphones. As long as they're not going backwards, I don't see a reason why these companies should not go with them.

apexalpha 9y ago
I don't think that is a fair response. 1) Camera's had proven use and adoption before being mounted on mobile computers. RAM has been ever increasing since the inception of it. 2) My comment should be seen in a timeframe. When I say no one needs 6GB RAM, there is an implied 'in 2017' added to that. Otherwise every discussion about hardware could be killed with you argument. >As long as they're not going backwards, I don't see a reason why these companies should not go with them. The question is: which one do you choose to put in your phone now. Knowing Android, knowing the other specs of the phone and knowing what kind of apps people use. In that case: I think the SD835 is overkill for 99% of people. That last 1% being people who want the fastest simply _because_ it is the fastest, or who play the most advanced mobile games / VR. Those people are a very small subset of all smartphone users. 1% might be too much.
- piyush_soni 9y ago
  As I said, I'd choose SD835 simply because it's more energy efficient even if the speed improvement is insignificant (even though it is not), and for most people more battery saving is a very welcome improvement. Moreover, it's not just that. Here's what's new in SD835 besides being 'faster' - - Around 25% less power consumption - Quick Charge 4 (up to 25% faster charging than Quick Charge 3) - Faster, more reliable and efficient Wireless (Gigabit LTE) - Bluetooth 5.0 support (significantly better than BLE 4.*) - Inbuilt Dual camera support and Electronic Image Stabilization version 3.0 for much better shake free videos. - Considerably smaller size so that phone makers can fit more 'stuff' inside. - And more ... All of these features are quite important to me. Of course, we'll have to see how these numbers turn up in real life, but to say it's an overkill for most people is equivalent to saying any new phone with new features is an overkill.
tertius 9y ago
Like physical keyboards.

clouddrover 9y ago

> No one cares about CPU performance. I think you'd care if you're running full Windows 10 for ARM on it. That would function as a laptop replacement and in the desktop usage scenario you'd care about performance.

Steko 9y ago

> No one cares about CPU performance. Huh, everyone cares how fast they browse the web. 835 trounces the 625 in JS/web benchmarks by a factor of 2-3 or more: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11201/Snapdragon_835-Web-Kraken.png http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11201/Snapdragon_835... That's Mozilla's benchmark. The Moto Z Play on the bottom is the only phone on the list with a 625. Its score would have been good in 2013.

ajdlinux 9y ago

As someone who's still using his Nexus 5 and seeing it get slower and slower as app bloat increases... I care, because I know the app bloat isn't going away.