4 ms·

From the article: > For example, the Google Pixel 5 had the Snapdragon 765G and the Pixel 6 series has Tensor with all of its inefficiencies. The author lost

From the article: > For example, the Google Pixel 5 had the Snapdragon 765G and the Pixel 6 series has Tensor with all of its inefficiencies. The author lost me right there. They are either unable to understand the difference between a midrange snapdragon and a state-of-the-art custom chip with 5 year support, or they are playing out a narrative that supports their argument.

hocuspocus 4y ago
The Tensor might be state-of-the-art on paper, it's still pretty average in practice. And the network performance in the Pixel 6/6 Pro is awful according to a lot of people, I'm not sure if it's the Samsung modem or the radio frontend, but it's not really acceptable when mid and high-end phones get put to shame by $300 phones with midrange Snapdragon in cell reception and speeds. The 5-year support is nice but I want to say... Finally? It's good that Samsung is making the effort and that the Pixel line benefits from it, but if Google was serious about this issue, it'd also strongarm Qualcomm and other SoC makers into mandatory 5-year kernel patches.
- utopcell 4y ago
  > The Tensor [..] it's still pretty average in practice. Benchmarks place the Tensor chip at 1.6X to 3X compared to the 765G [1]. Again, my point is, if someone is willing to "bend the truth" to support their narrative, then they have already lost the reader's trust. What value can one possibly place to any subsequent claims they make ? [1] https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-google_tensor-vs-qualcomm_snapdragon_765g https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-google_tensor-vs-q...
  - hocuspocus 4y ago
    I don't see the issue with the article's statement really. > However, time and time again, particularly with its flagships, there has been some kind of compromise. The Snapdragon 765G in the Pixel 5 is a compromise (if you paid the sticker price, otherwise it wasn't an unreasonable choice). The Tensor is also a compromise. Good SoC on paper, but not so true in practice: it isn't competitive against the Snapdragon 888, and it offers terrible network connectivity, which a complete showstopper for a lot of people.

hocuspocus 4y ago

The Tensor might be state-of-the-art on paper, it's still pretty average in practice. And the network performance in the Pixel 6/6 Pro is awful according to a lot of people, I'm not sure if it's the Samsung modem or the radio frontend, but it's not really acceptable when mid and high-end phones get put to shame by $300 phones with midrange Snapdragon in cell reception and speeds. The 5-year support is nice but I want to say... Finally? It's good that Samsung is making the effort and that the Pixel line benefits from it, but if Google was serious about this issue, it'd also strongarm Qualcomm and other SoC makers into mandatory 5-year kernel patches.

utopcell 4y ago
> The Tensor [..] it's still pretty average in practice. Benchmarks place the Tensor chip at 1.6X to 3X compared to the 765G [1]. Again, my point is, if someone is willing to "bend the truth" to support their narrative, then they have already lost the reader's trust. What value can one possibly place to any subsequent claims they make ? [1] https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-google_tensor-vs-qualcomm_snapdragon_765g https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-google_tensor-vs-q...
- hocuspocus 4y ago
  I don't see the issue with the article's statement really. > However, time and time again, particularly with its flagships, there has been some kind of compromise. The Snapdragon 765G in the Pixel 5 is a compromise (if you paid the sticker price, otherwise it wasn't an unreasonable choice). The Tensor is also a compromise. Good SoC on paper, but not so true in practice: it isn't competitive against the Snapdragon 888, and it offers terrible network connectivity, which a complete showstopper for a lot of people.