Qualcomm unveils 11nm Snapdragon 665, 8nm Snapdragon 730 and 730G with improved graphics

09 April 2019
The 665 is the successor to the 660, while the 730 comes to replace the 710, presumably.

Sort by:

ENDERFREAK, 29 Nov 2019It really is one of the best smartphones u can buy for that... moreYup. Even Realme (Oppo) still struggles on selling the 5/5s because of Redmi Note 8. microUSB is a step back though on Realme devices.

Geric.770, 29 Nov 2019Well, I have my Redmi note 8 here won from giveaway, this v... moreIt really is one of the best smartphones u can buy for that price tag. If anybody has a budget I would definitely recommend XIAOMI in most cases for its excellent price to performance ratio

ENDERFREAK, 29 Nov 2019HAHAHAHA nice, well I guess I'm the only one here reading t... moreWell, I have my Redmi note 8 here won from giveaway, this visiting back here and see what this phone can do.

I mean, for $160, it's an outstanding phone for that segment.

Geric.770, 29 Nov 2019The call of technology, and Sony trollers :vHAHAHAHA nice, well I guess I'm the only one here reading tech news from 2 weeks ago. I sure have a hard time catching up in both articles and videos man

ENDERFREAK, 29 Nov 2019Oh hey Geric, seems like you're back in business recently eh?The call of technology, and Sony trollers :v

Geric.770, 29 Nov 2019I don't care about those performance nerfs as long as the b... moreOh hey Geric, seems like you're back in business recently eh?

Kangal, 17 Apr 2019You're arguing against yourself, not me. I never said anyt... more665 is the true midrange though. Upper midrangers are the 7XX.

xXENDER FREAKXx, 11 Apr 2019While it is great to see chipset manufacturers going for sm... moreI don't care about those performance nerfs as long as the battery and camera department is 100% better.

Bla, 17 Apr 2019Dont you see I dont care for all those chipsets and prices ... moreYou're arguing against yourself, not me.
I never said anything about release dates, or that the QSD 660 was not a successor of something. And in case you haven't realised, I know about this stuff much more intricately than you do, and I know of the marketing, product cancellations and name changes too. You literally invented all of that rubbish, to argue against it, to make yourself look correct. Too bad, everyone can go back and read my previous comments, and realise the disingenuous strategy you have concocted.

Let me repeat/rephrase what I have already said....
Entry:
USD 2017/2018 MediaTek -> 2019 MediaTek

Low-End:
USD ~$100, 2GB RAM, 32GB NAND, 540p, Camera is useable, No ingress protection
QSD 617 -> QSD 439 -> QSD 632

Low Midrange:
USD ~$200, 4GB RAM, 64GB NAND, 720p, Camera is decent, Splash resistant
QSD 650 -> QSD 636 -> QSD 665

High Midrange:
USD ~$300, 6GB RAM, 128GB NAND, 1080p, Camera is good, IP55
QSD 653 -> QSD 712 -> QSD 730

Flagship:
USD ~$500, 8GB RAM, 256GB storage, 1440p, Camera is great, IP68,
QSD 835 -> QSD 845 -> QSD 855


....please, go back and see my previous long post which had all the different processors in hierarchy with their average performance compiled into a list. Notice that all the processors that I've discussed are in that list, and you can see their performances. Unfortunately, this will be my last response in this forum, there is nothing I can say or add on top of this that will be productive as a discussion for the readers.

  • Bla

Kangal, 11 Apr 2019Yes, the problem is you. I am trying to communicate with y... moreDont you see I dont care for all those chipsets and prices for each. I just want you to tell me why 660 is not a succesor to 650/652/653? That was my only reason why I wrote to you in the first place. I appriciate your polute type of dialogue but, I want facts, not opinions. I will repeat. Why 660 is NOT a succesot of 65x series? Why? What chispet came after 65x and had improve specs by a lot? The answer is 660. Holy Jesus. 65X was the first chispet that matched performance of one generation old top 800 series. 65X was performing just a little lower than 810, but with GPU of 808. It was a very big difference from low tier 615. The same was doing the 660. He matched performance of 820. I am really sorry that I can't speak or write english that good as you, but I hope you will find a punchline of all Im saying.

  • Bla

Kangal, 11 Apr 2019Yes, the problem is you. I am trying to communicate with y... moreFirst aka premium mid end chipset from Qualcomm was 650, 652, 653. Next premium mid end chispet was 660 as it came right after, as a new gen. Then we see 636 which you said is downclocked 660. But 636 came after 660. So why mentioning the 636 when that chipset arrived after 660? Problem is in you, my dear stuborn friend who likes to copy paste without understanding the relasing dates of each chispet. Please Copy paste the releasing dates. 636 is not faster by a lot from his according to you, predeccesor 650/653/653. It is only more efficient due to more modern finnet, but they are performing simillary. They really performe about the same. But 660 in another hand, is a different story. 660 is a succesor to first EVER premium mid end chipset, the 65x series. That include 650, 652 and 653. When 650 and 652 arrived they had oficially different names. 650 was 618 and 652 was 620, but those were so much powerfull with first incorporatiom of big cores A72 then their so called predecessors 615, 616 and 617 using only clusters of A53, that Qualcomm decided to split 600 series into two mid tier. Lower and higher medium class of chipset. And now it's 2019. We have 3 tiers in 600 series.

Well this sounds interesting sadly my Moto X4 has SD630 and thats 2017 phone which costed me 395 bucks brand new initial day of release.

Bla, 10 Apr 2019How could I mixed you with someone when I reply to your com... moreI've replied to your previous comment, its very long so it is waiting for Moderators to Approve the comment for you to view it soon. In the meantime, I wanted to share with you the Mobile Chipset Hierarchy. It's comprehensive, but not all-inclusive, and based on a lot of datapoints as an aggregate. I hope you enjoy:


Position - Chipset Name….. CPU single-core / CPU multi-thread / GPU performance
(2011)
82 - Tegra 3............… 300 / 1,100 / 7,000
81 - Exynos 4412…... 400 / 1,100 / 6,000
80 - QSD 400….......... 500 / 1,600 / 11,000 (Krait-200 S4 Pro)
79 - QSD 600….......... 600 / 2,000 / 12,000
78 - Apple A6 (?)….... 700 / 1,300 / 8,000

76 - Helio P20…........ 800 / 3,400 / 11,000
75 - Helio P22........… 800 / 3,500 / 11,000
74 - QSD 429…........ 800 / 3,600 / 11,000
73 - QSD 439.........… 800 / 3,700 / 11,000
72 - QSD 450…......... 800 / 3,700 / 12,000
71 - Helio P23.......… 800 / 3,800 / 12,000
70 - Helio P25........… 800 / 3,800 / 14,000
69 - QSD 625…......... 800 / 3,900 / 13,000
68 - Helio P30........… 900 / 3,900 / 15,000
67 - QSD 626..........… 900 / 4,200 / 14,000
66 - Helio P35…......... 900 / 3,900 / 17,000
65 - QSD 630..........… 900 / 4,300 / 15,000

63- Exynos 5420.......… 900 / 2,700 / 13,000
62 - Exynos 5430…...... 900 / 2,900 / 14,000
61 - QSD 800….......... 1,000 / 2,800 / 13,000
60 - RK 3288..........… 1,100 / 2,800 / 15,000
59 - QSD 801…........... 1,100 / 3,000 / 15,000
58 - Tegra 4…............. 1,100 / 2,900 / 17,000
57 - QSD 808 (?)......… 1,300 / 3,600 / 14,000 (unsustainable thermals)
56 - QSD 810 (?)…...... 1,300 / 4,500 / 19,000 (unsustainable thermals)
55 - QSD 805..........…. 1,200 / 3,400 / 18,000
54 - QSD 632…........... 1,200 / 4,400 / 16,000

52 - Apple A7 (?).........… 1,500 / 2,900 / 12,000
51 - Exynos 5433…........ 1,200 / 4,200 / 16,000
50 - Tegra K1-32bit (?)… 1,200 / 4,000 / 19,000 (unsustainable thermals)
49 - QSD 650…................ 1,400 / 3,100 / 12,000
48 - Helio X20….............. 1,500 / 4,500 / 10,000
47 - Apple A8 (?)….......... 1,600 / 3,100 / 14,000

45 - Tegra K1-Denver (?)… 1,900 / 4,100 / 19,000 (unsustainable thermals)
44 - RK 3399 (?)….............. 1,400 / 3,700 / 11,000
43 - QSD 652….................... 1,400 / 4,600 / 12,000
42 - QSD 653….................... 1,400 / 4,700 / 13,000
41 - Exynos 7420............…. 1,300 / 4,500 / 18,000
40 - Tegra X1 (?)…............... 1,400 / 4,700 / 24,000 (unsustainable thermals)
39 - Helio X23…................... 1,600 / 4,500 / 11,000
38 - Helio X25…................... 1,700 / 4,500 / 11,000
37 - Helio X27...................… 1,700 / 4,600 / 12,000
36 - Exynos 7885….............. 1,500 / 4,500 / 15,000

34 - QSD 636…........ 1,400 / 5,000 / 17,000
33 - Kirin 710........... 1,600 / 5,400 / 16,000
32 - QSD 670…......... 1,700 / 5,300 / 18,000
31 - QSD 660…......... 1,600 / 5,700 / 18,000
30 - QSD 820.........… 1,700 / 4,300 / 20,000 (underclocked)

28 - Kirin 950........… 1,700 / 5,200 / 15,000
27 - Helio P60…....... 1,500 / 5,700 / 18,000
26 - Kirin 955.........… 1,700 / 5,300 / 16,000
25 - Helio P70........… 1,600 / 5,900 / 18,000
24 - Helio X30........…. 2,000 / 5,600 / 14,000
23 - QSD 675..........… 1,900 / 5,900 / 17,000
22 - QSD 710..........… 1,900 / 5,600 / 19,000
21 - QSD 821.........…. 1,900 / 4,400 / 22,000 (overclocked)
20 - Apple A9 (?)....…. 2,200 / 4,600 / 16,000

18 - QSD 712…........ 1,900 / 5,700 / 20,000
17 - Exynos 8890…. 1,800 / 5,900 / 19,000
16 - Kirin 960.......…. 1,800 / 6,400 / 15,000
15 - Helio P90.......… 1,900 / 5,900 / 19,000

13 - Exynos 8895…........ 2,000 / 6,700 / 21,000
12 - Kirin 970…............... 1,900 / 6,900 / 21,000
11 - QSD 835…................ 2,000 / 6,800 / 25,000
10 - Exynos 9810 (?)….... 3,600 / 8,800 / 26,000 (unsustainable thermals)
9 - Exynos 9820 (?).......… 4,500 / 9,900 / 29,000 (unsustainable thermals)

7 - Apple A10 (?)..… 3,400 / 6,100 / 20,000
6 - QSD 845..........… 2,500 / 8,900 / 33,000
5 - Kirin 980….......... 3,200 / 10,000 / 28,000
4 - QSD 855..........… 3,500 / 12,000 / 38,000

2 - Apple A11 (?)….... 4,100 / 10,000 / 24,000
1 - Apple A12 (?)....… 4,800 / 12,000 / 27,000
(2020)

*A balanced SoC is most desired, with importance given to IPC, then Total CPU, and finally Graphical Powress
*thermals and battery life taken into account when positioning
*scores are based on averages, and rounded up/down, due to variance of handsets
*some scores are not properly available (?), but an estimate is provided.

Bla, 10 Apr 2019"To the current market: QSD 625, QSD 636, QSD 712, QSD 845... moreYes, the problem is you.
I am trying to communicate with you, but you are not comprehending what I am trying to say. Don't strawman the CPU typing, however, that was a pretty big oversight, yet I am mature enough to overlook petty things like that. Ie, I am trying to have a genuine dialogue here.

For the ultra cheap phones, you do NOT need a Qualcomm Snapdragon SoC/chipset. Get a different chipset ie Exynos, Kirin, MediaTek, RockChip, AMLogic, Allwinner, VIA, etc etc. Why? Because at this price point, you are more forgivable for things like Efficiency, CPU speed, GPU speed, DSP quality, Radio performance, getting stable/frequent/long-term software updates, let alone getting GPL sources for drivers, kernels, and documentation.
...hence, there's really no need for a Qualcomm Snapdragon chipset that is worse than the QSD 439.

The QSD 439/450/625/626/630 are practically identical chipsets, and some are interchangeable on the "motherboard". These chipsets offer great efficiency, great GPU, great radios, and "passable CPU" performance for the Low-End of the market. Here we're talking about price points around ~USD $100. And alongside it, you should expect something like 2GB RAM, 32GB storage, and 720p (or lower) display. The recent QSD 632 (which hasn't quite hit the market) is very similar to these chipsets, and offers slightly better CPU performance, but make no mistake its by and large a Low-End Chipset even if you find it in a Mid-Range Phone like the rip-off HMD-China handsets. It makes sense for Qualcomm to phase out the QSD 439/450/625/626/630... and double-down on the QSD 632 instead, that way they can continue to put pressure on their direct competitors and be a leader in this market.

Now, the next step-up is the QSD 636. This is basically a cut-down QSD 660, if you don't understand what that means, think of the Nvidia GTX 1070, 1070 Ti, and the 1080. These are all the same gpu, but the slower models are cut-down from the larger ones during the binning stage. And as I said earlier, the QSD 636 is a much better chipset than the QSD 439/630 and the QSD 632, and the QSD 650/652/653. This is a Low-Midrange chipset. We're talking about price points around ~USD $200. You should expect something with 4GB RAM, 64GB storage, and 720p display. As I said earlier, Qualcomm may want to phase this out and refresh it with the QSD 665 instead to stay relevant.

Now, there is no need for processors from Qualcomm that are faster than the QSD 636 and slower than the QSD 712. These in-between chipsets don't make a significant difference to the end experience, and a bigger difference to the user can come from improving other aspects of the phone like: marketing, software support, build quality, IO, cameras, display. That's quite a logical/rational and easy thing to understand, yet, people are getting duped into buying phones with QSD 660 chipsets at prices barely beneath the flagship QSD 845/855 phones. I'm of the opinion, that an informed public is a smart/happy public, and consequently market place.

Yet, I do agree that there is a segment in the market for a High-Midrange chipset. We're talking pricing of ~USD $300. And expecting specifications of similar to 6GB RAM, 128GB storage, and 1080p displays. Here, the QSD 712 behaves very well and much better than the QSD 670, 660, 675, and basically on-par with the QSD 710. And again, as I said earlier the new QSD 730 is a solid improvement and deserves this silver medal spot. (Ignore the QSD 730G, which is the "gamer edition", it will not be better/different, and is a poor marketing trick). If Qualcomm allows the QSD 730 to thrive in this position (by reducing the above Mid-Midrange chipset availability), it will mean they are improving the Market Share and spurring competition and coming out again as leaders in the segment.

Now, of course there is another tier above this. Here we're talking ~USD $500 price or more, and with 8GB RAM (or more), with 256GB storage (or more), and a display resolution of 1440p (or more). You guessed it, its the flagship segment, and we're talking about chipsets like the QSD 855, but there's nothing that needs to be said here.

I hope you now understand the message I was intending to convey. And there's really No Bad Chipsets, only Bad Prices!!! (eg, as much as I have "hated on" the QSD 670 in this exposition, I would take it in a heartbeat if it was placed in a $100 phone!!!).

Kangal, 09 Apr 2019Those lithography numbers are little more than marketing at... moreWhile it is great to see chipset manufacturers going for smaller wafer sizes year by year, the gain in performance is negligible at best. I mean, they're making small, baby steps after all, so it's hard to even notice the performance improvement you'll get from them, unless you're moving from let's say a 20nm to a 14nm, taking the SNAPDRAGON 810 and the SNAPDRAGON 820 as an example respectively. In most cases, the only difference you'll notice when moving to a smaller wafer is probably the better battery life. If you're after big performance gains, then u should focus on the CPU and GPU side of things even more as compared to these nanolithography numbers, as those are the main factors that greatly affect the performance gain you're getting

  • Bla

Kangal, 10 Apr 2019No, I never said that, and if anything I think the opposite... more When did I say 65x is better than 636? I didn't. 636 is performing much better then 65x only because it's more efficiant, but it's not much faster. Neither is the gpu much faster. 509 in 636 is a slightly improvement over 510 in 65x models.
All I'm saying is 660 was update to 65x series. Not 636. Over and out. I promise :)

  • Bla

Kangal, 10 Apr 2019No, I never said that, and if anything I think the opposite... moreHow could I mixed you with someone when I reply to your comment? 660 have A73 cores, while 65x having A72. 660 is on newer 14nm finnet, 65x is on 28. Do you see what I am talking about? Where is 660? And when he has arrived? In which time? 660 is absolutley not just a overclocked 653.

https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon-653-mobile-platform
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon-660-mobile-platform

  • Bla

Kangal, 10 Apr 2019I'd look at the Snapdragon Portfolio like this lineup below... more"To the current market:
QSD 625, QSD 636, QSD 712, QSD 845"

What? And where are 630 and 660? Okay I was wrong with saying 636 has only custom A53 cores and totally forget about another cluster with custom A73. Just because of my lapsus with type core you don't listen and ignore everything what I'm saying. In one time we had 835 for high end, 660 for premium mid end, 625 for mid end and 435 for so called low end becuase series 200 is really low. My point was that 650 was the first to incorporate A7x cores to mid end chipset. Nevermind the 652/653. They are basicly the same just with another two A72 cores added. And now lets talk about time after 650. Which was the next mid end chipset to have A7x cores? According to you it was 710. But where is 660?
I just give up. Aparently problem is in me.

dude111, 10 Apr 2019https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_(integrated_circuit)Thanks dude!

  • Wait till next year

I'll wait until next year. Things are always improving so it pays to wait.