Snapdragon Wear 2100 SoC unveiled, LG already working on smartwatches
- D
- AnonD-455738
- SY8
- 13 Feb 2016
AnonD-411204, 12 Feb 2016The thing is Qualcomm is not as ignorant as we are. So, the... more1. You are right, A35 was unveiled not a long ago as I thought, that is my bad. Thought it was last summer/spring, but it was just 3 months ago.
2. The A35 has much better idle saving which is what I guess a smart watch does most of the time. So considering this, it should lead to much more than 1-2% better battery life. Point 1 is probably the reason for this to not be used this time. It´s not cheap to develop a SoC, so it would probably have been cheaper making an A35 based SoC now (had it been available) instead of a A7 and then an A35 based ones.
Not sure what setup the footprint is for those A7 and A53 cores you mentioned, but taken from ARM: "The smallest configuration of the Cortex-A35 processor using 8K L1 caches occupies less than 0.4 mm2 and consumes less than 6mW at 100 MHz in 28nm making it an extremely small, ultra-efficient 64-bit processor that can be used for deeply embedded applications."
PS. This SoC is a step in the right direction, but I would love to see it use next gen/current tech and not 4 year old tech. Also A35 can go down to 14/16nm, think A7 only has for 20nm.
- D
- AnonD-411204
- LJr
- 12 Feb 2016
AnonD-455738, 12 Feb 2016Obviously I don´t. But neither do you, the fact is th... moreThe thing is Qualcomm is not as ignorant as we are. So, the thing is:
1) Qualcomm designed SD2100 before having A35 libraries available, even if they knew it would exist. This is normal because ARM announcement precedes actual products by a lot of months. I've noticed this happen for A15, A53, A57 and A72. BTW, A53 and A57 were announced at the same time but A53 was out in commercial products like 2-3 months before, so core complexity may be an issue.
2) Qualcomm didn't want to pay NOW for A35 core, because it would draw no real benefits. 10% battery saving in a core is maybe 1-2% in the whole smartwatch power envelope. And since it won't need more than 4GiB for the foreseeable future, they may consider it wasting good money.
PS: BTW, I'm not involved in any way, other than using their products, with ARM, Qualcomm or any of its competitors.
PPS: Approximate core size of A53 is 0.7sqmm, A7 is 0.4sqmm, both at Samsung 20nm (source Anandtech Exynos 5433 vs 5430). That would put A35 at some 0.51sqmm (25% smaller than A53, according to ARM claims), which is still a good 30% bigger than A7. That's another good, if cheap, reason to stick to A7.
- D
- AnonD-455738
- SY8
- 12 Feb 2016
AnonD-411204, 12 Feb 2016wargreymon, I guess you have real world benchmarks to back ... moreObviously I don´t. But neither do you, the fact is that there is a higher chance it´s true than not. Unless of course you can back up your claim, it´s your words against ARMs, and I have no idea who you are or why your word would matter over theirs.
- D
- AnonD-411204
- LJr
- 12 Feb 2016
AnonD-455738, 12 Feb 2016Yes, who would want 10% lower power usage and 6-40% more pe... morewargreymon, I guess you have real world benchmarks to back your claims, something beyond ARM PR. I don't even believe that A35 has lower transistor count tha A7, which would be a good indicator of power draw at same process.
- D
- AnonD-455738
- SY8
- 12 Feb 2016
AnonD-352420, 12 Feb 2016Exactly, its only a small part and the rest of the a53 is b... moreYes, who would want 10% lower power usage and 6-40% more performance? Are you trolling? Because you sure are showing the symptoms for it.
- D
- AnonD-352420
- jLB
- 12 Feb 2016
AnonD-455738, 12 Feb 201664-bit is a very small portion of ARMv8. A35 is a better co... moreExactly, its only a small part and the rest of the a53 is basically a a7. In terms of performance and energy efficiency
- D
- AnonD-455738
- SY8
- 12 Feb 2016
AnonD-352484, 11 Feb 2016the a7 and the a35 are 95% same architecture, the only real... more64-bit is a very small portion of ARMv8. A35 is a better core to use for wearables, and there is no reason not to use it. If the performance isn't needed, then down clock and have even better endurance.
- ?
- Anonymous
- P@$
- 12 Feb 2016
you don't play games or watching video with your smartphone, efficient is more important
- ?
- Anonymous
- Kgf
- 12 Feb 2016
Hopefully we'll see more entry-lebel sub-100 dollar wearables this year.
- C
- Christian
- 0U@
- 12 Feb 2016
AnonD-352484, 11 Feb 2016the a7 and the a35 are 95% same architecture, the only real... moreYou are confusing it the a35 and a53!
- D
- AnonD-352484
- b2G
- 11 Feb 2016
the a7 and the a35 are 95% same architecture, the only real difference is the 64 bit support. and you dont need that in a smartwatch, the efficiency is the same
- D
- AnonD-455738
- SY8
- 11 Feb 2016
Anonymous, 11 Feb 2016well maybe cpu is not that important becouse smartwatchs do... moreA7 is super old and not efficient. A35 is much more efficient and faster, so you could downclock it if you wanted. Plus it has ARMv8 support etc.
- A
- Anonym
- haS
- 11 Feb 2016
Anonymous, 11 Feb 2016well maybe cpu is not that important becouse smartwatchs do... moreThat's the whole point, power-efficiency is paramount to a smartwatch -- not raw CPU power. And it's exactly in that regard the Cortex-A7 isn't that good... like the OP pointed-out.
- ?
- Anonymous
- 0xY
- 11 Feb 2016
AnonD-455738, 11 Feb 2016Even worse, they are using Cortex-A7 which is like 4-5 year... morewell maybe cpu is not that important becouse smartwatchs dosent have very much app,and app for them are not demanding
- A
- Anonym
- haS
- 11 Feb 2016
AnonD-455738, 11 Feb 2016Even worse, they are using Cortex-A7 which is like 4-5 year... moreExactly. I find nothing in this chip that tells me "it's made thinking of wearables", which is a shame coming from a manufacturer such as Qualcomm.
And no, just naming it "Snapdragon Wear" simply doesn't cut it.
- D
- AnonD-19153
- 64N
- 11 Feb 2016
Ok let's put this chip in a smartphone and a big battery
- D
- AnonD-455738
- 9Cm
- 11 Feb 2016
AnonD-234961, 11 Feb 2016I can't find absolutely nothing on the manufacturing techno... moreEven worse, they are using Cortex-A7 which is like 4-5 years old, instead of using A35 which is made for wearables. Lets hope next gen of wearable SoCs come to the fall or something.
- D
- AnonD-234961
- 95j
- 11 Feb 2016
I can't find absolutely nothing on the manufacturing technology on Qualcomm's site regarding this chip, so I assume that they intentionally hide it and it is 28nm like the new midrange 435 chip. Which is bad, this chip should have been done with 14nm technology since battery life is very important in wearables.