4 ms·

It is used for a few non-generative tasks like speech recognition, but other chips are also capable of these tasks. The only thing the Tensor G3 seems to be be

It is used for a few non-generative tasks like speech recognition, but other chips are also capable of these tasks. The only thing the Tensor G3 seems to be better at is avoiding Qualcomm's habit of EoLing consumer smartphone chips.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fh9302 3y ago
If that's the case, why do phones with the Tensor G1 and G2 only receive 3 major updates? That even applies to the Pixel Fold, a $1800 phone released a couple months ago. There's no Qualcomm to blame here, it appears to be purely a business decision by Google.
- coder543 3y ago
  Where did I mention the Tensor G1 and G2? I didn't. I only said "Tensor G3". Yes, feel free to blame Google for not supporting the G1 and G2 better. None of that changes that Qualcomm does not support consumer smartphone chips beyond a couple of years.
  - fh9302 3y ago
    Can you show me evidence that Qualcomm refuses to support chipsets even in the case where they would get paid to extend support?
    - coder543 3y ago
      Fairphone made some claims about this when they launched the Fairphone 5. That's the sole reason it's not using a normal consumer-facing Snapdragon chip, and instead using some kind of industrial Qualcomm chip. Fairphone pointing this out wasn't exactly news to anyone who has been paying attention to this stuff. I also wouldn't be too surprised if Qualcomm starts to change their tune under pressure from other manufacturers who want to stay competitive with Google.
      - fh9302 3y ago
        Mishaal Rahman claims it's purely a business decision and not an artifical limitation set by Qualcomm: https://twitter.com/MishaalRahman/status/1710442249778086260 https://twitter.com/MishaalRahman/status/1710442249778086260
        coder543 3y ago
        "Business decision" and "artificial limitation" are frequently synonymous. I think @MishaalRahman was correct to say "If OEMs keep buying a particular chipset [...] then it'll continue being supported", especially with Qualcomm, if the sales volume remains high enough. I also agree it is generally correct to say you can pay an SoC vendor to continue supporting a chipset, but that doesn't seem to have been correct for Qualcomm. If a particular mid-range chip was still selling well years after release, then Qualcomm may have seen fit to continue supporting it so that those new phones could continue selling well. Qualcomm primarily cares about selling chips. Supporting old chips that have already sold (and aren't continuing to sell well) does not help Qualcomm sell more chips, so they haven't wanted to do it. I think Qualcomm may come around to supporting chips better (maybe even at their next announcement in a few days), but their historical behavior in this regard has been less than ideal. In fact, Qualcomm cares so much about selling chips that they've allegedly nearly sunk the Oryon SoC in the process.[0] They apparently saw an opportunity to force-bundle more chips, in this case the PMICs, which were so unsuitable that the manufacturers wanted to buy them and literally throw them in the garbage just to keep Qualcomm happy, while using alternative PMICs instead. But, Qualcomm supposedly baked the decision into Oryon so deeply that only Qualcomm's PMICs are compatible. Apparently, this is causing manufacturers to consider abandoning Oryon entirely. Most people would logically think that Qualcomm cares primarily about making money, but instead their first priority actually seems to be selling chips, even if it means leaving money on the table, regardless of whether that is logical or not. Why did Fairphone choose to use an industrial SoC if they could have just paid Qualcomm a little more money to extend the life of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2? [0]: https://semiaccurate.com/2023/09/26/whats-going-on-with-qualcomms-oryon-soc/ https://semiaccurate.com/2023/09/26/whats-going-on-with-qual...
        3y ago
    - wmf 3y ago
      I wonder if there's a coordination problem where no individual Qualcomm customer wants to pay the entire cost of extended support but if they all shared that cost it would be reasonable.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Google is not a naive poor company that isn't capable to have a lawyer company setting up proper support contracts. In fact, Microsoft has no issues imposing exactly that for Windows ARM devices since the Windows CE/Pocket PC days. It seems it needs to be called for every time this is used as excuse.
    - coder543 3y ago
      > Google is not a naive poor company that isn't capable to have a lawyer company setting up proper support contracts. Set up contracts with whom, exactly? Google doesn’t control the other OEMs, and the other OEMs are the ones negotiating with Qualcomm, not Google. Unless you’re specifically talking about the Pixel line, which doesn’t have enough market share to force Qualcomm to agree to anything. Are you perhaps suggesting Google should suddenly and unilaterally prevent Android from working on Qualcomm devices until Qualcomm agrees to support it for X years? Which, if it were even possible, would hurt the other OEMs more than it would hurt Google? Or are you suggesting that Google stop working with the other OEMs until they agree to negotiate with Qualcomm to support their devices longer? Google can’t prevent Qualcomm or the other OEMs from compiling Android for their devices; it’s not closed source like Windows. Your comment is confusing. If Android were closed source, and if Google were negotiating this from the beginning, your comment would make sense. With an open source product, Qualcomm can just do whatever they need to in order to bring Android to Qualcomm devices. The cat is already out of the bag. Google has no say in the matter. Google could always break the Play Store / Google Play Services on Qualcomm devices, I suppose, but that would directly hurt Google, Google’s OEM partners, and the developers who build for the Google Play Store. More importantly, a move like this would make Samsung push much harder on their own App Store, and Google would attract the scrutiny of unhappy regulators. Google has no incentive to do any of that.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Many questions that lawyers in international trade law have certainly an answer for. If Google actually cared about making it happen.
        3y ago
fidotron 3y ago
I think the truth is the Tensor is a barely modified Samsung Exynos.
- coder543 3y ago
  The Tensor G1 was probably pretty close to that, but I think subsequent generations have been diverging more. They are still made at Samsung's fabs, and I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung is still helping to design the chips. Either way, I haven't seen anything to be impressed by when it comes to the Tensor SoCs themselves. The performance is lackluster, and in spite of Google's marketing, the AI acceleration isn't clearly better than what Qualcomm or Apple are offering.
- kcb 3y ago
  All the tensor chips so far have had different CPU core configurations than available Exynos chips. So it isn't just a rebadge.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

fh9302 3y ago

If that's the case, why do phones with the Tensor G1 and G2 only receive 3 major updates? That even applies to the Pixel Fold, a $1800 phone released a couple months ago. There's no Qualcomm to blame here, it appears to be purely a business decision by Google.

coder543 3y ago
Where did I mention the Tensor G1 and G2? I didn't. I only said "Tensor G3". Yes, feel free to blame Google for not supporting the G1 and G2 better. None of that changes that Qualcomm does not support consumer smartphone chips beyond a couple of years.
- fh9302 3y ago
  Can you show me evidence that Qualcomm refuses to support chipsets even in the case where they would get paid to extend support?
  - coder543 3y ago
    Fairphone made some claims about this when they launched the Fairphone 5. That's the sole reason it's not using a normal consumer-facing Snapdragon chip, and instead using some kind of industrial Qualcomm chip. Fairphone pointing this out wasn't exactly news to anyone who has been paying attention to this stuff. I also wouldn't be too surprised if Qualcomm starts to change their tune under pressure from other manufacturers who want to stay competitive with Google.
    - fh9302 3y ago
      Mishaal Rahman claims it's purely a business decision and not an artifical limitation set by Qualcomm: https://twitter.com/MishaalRahman/status/1710442249778086260 https://twitter.com/MishaalRahman/status/1710442249778086260
      - coder543 3y ago
        "Business decision" and "artificial limitation" are frequently synonymous. I think @MishaalRahman was correct to say "If OEMs keep buying a particular chipset [...] then it'll continue being supported", especially with Qualcomm, if the sales volume remains high enough. I also agree it is generally correct to say you can pay an SoC vendor to continue supporting a chipset, but that doesn't seem to have been correct for Qualcomm. If a particular mid-range chip was still selling well years after release, then Qualcomm may have seen fit to continue supporting it so that those new phones could continue selling well. Qualcomm primarily cares about selling chips. Supporting old chips that have already sold (and aren't continuing to sell well) does not help Qualcomm sell more chips, so they haven't wanted to do it. I think Qualcomm may come around to supporting chips better (maybe even at their next announcement in a few days), but their historical behavior in this regard has been less than ideal. In fact, Qualcomm cares so much about selling chips that they've allegedly nearly sunk the Oryon SoC in the process.[0] They apparently saw an opportunity to force-bundle more chips, in this case the PMICs, which were so unsuitable that the manufacturers wanted to buy them and literally throw them in the garbage just to keep Qualcomm happy, while using alternative PMICs instead. But, Qualcomm supposedly baked the decision into Oryon so deeply that only Qualcomm's PMICs are compatible. Apparently, this is causing manufacturers to consider abandoning Oryon entirely. Most people would logically think that Qualcomm cares primarily about making money, but instead their first priority actually seems to be selling chips, even if it means leaving money on the table, regardless of whether that is logical or not. Why did Fairphone choose to use an industrial SoC if they could have just paid Qualcomm a little more money to extend the life of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2? [0]: https://semiaccurate.com/2023/09/26/whats-going-on-with-qualcomms-oryon-soc/ https://semiaccurate.com/2023/09/26/whats-going-on-with-qual...
        3y ago
  - wmf 3y ago
    I wonder if there's a coordination problem where no individual Qualcomm customer wants to pay the entire cost of extended support but if they all shared that cost it would be reasonable.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Google is not a naive poor company that isn't capable to have a lawyer company setting up proper support contracts. In fact, Microsoft has no issues imposing exactly that for Windows ARM devices since the Windows CE/Pocket PC days. It seems it needs to be called for every time this is used as excuse.
  - coder543 3y ago
    > Google is not a naive poor company that isn't capable to have a lawyer company setting up proper support contracts. Set up contracts with whom, exactly? Google doesn’t control the other OEMs, and the other OEMs are the ones negotiating with Qualcomm, not Google. Unless you’re specifically talking about the Pixel line, which doesn’t have enough market share to force Qualcomm to agree to anything. Are you perhaps suggesting Google should suddenly and unilaterally prevent Android from working on Qualcomm devices until Qualcomm agrees to support it for X years? Which, if it were even possible, would hurt the other OEMs more than it would hurt Google? Or are you suggesting that Google stop working with the other OEMs until they agree to negotiate with Qualcomm to support their devices longer? Google can’t prevent Qualcomm or the other OEMs from compiling Android for their devices; it’s not closed source like Windows. Your comment is confusing. If Android were closed source, and if Google were negotiating this from the beginning, your comment would make sense. With an open source product, Qualcomm can just do whatever they need to in order to bring Android to Qualcomm devices. The cat is already out of the bag. Google has no say in the matter. Google could always break the Play Store / Google Play Services on Qualcomm devices, I suppose, but that would directly hurt Google, Google’s OEM partners, and the developers who build for the Google Play Store. More importantly, a move like this would make Samsung push much harder on their own App Store, and Google would attract the scrutiny of unhappy regulators. Google has no incentive to do any of that.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Many questions that lawyers in international trade law have certainly an answer for. If Google actually cared about making it happen.
      - 3y ago

fidotron 3y ago

I think the truth is the Tensor is a barely modified Samsung Exynos.

coder543 3y ago
The Tensor G1 was probably pretty close to that, but I think subsequent generations have been diverging more. They are still made at Samsung's fabs, and I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung is still helping to design the chips. Either way, I haven't seen anything to be impressed by when it comes to the Tensor SoCs themselves. The performance is lackluster, and in spite of Google's marketing, the AI acceleration isn't clearly better than what Qualcomm or Apple are offering.
kcb 3y ago
All the tensor chips so far have had different CPU core configurations than available Exynos chips. So it isn't just a rebadge.