Qualcomm confirms that the '600' is the other processor for the Samsung Galaxy S 4
On Friday, Qualcomm confirmed that its Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 processor will be under the hood in the U.S. and Canada. This info was leaked in late February. The Adreno 320 GPU will be crunching the graphics. For the Samsung Galaxy S 4, the quad-core processor will have a 1.9GHz clockspeed. The same quad-core processor is used on both the HTC One and the LG Optimus G Pro but set at a slower 1.7GHz speed.
and was introduced at CES in Las Vegas. The official word about its inclusion in the just announced superstar handset came from the big chip maker when it said in a press release that "We are proud to say that the newest Snapdragon 600 processor is at the heart of the Galaxy S4 in select regions," and later sent an email to Ars Technica confirming that the U.S. version of the Samsung Galaxy S 4 is powered by the '600'.
Last year, the international version of the Samsung Galaxy S III (GT-I9300) carried a quad-core 1.4GHz Samsung Exynos processor while the U.S. model carried a dual-core 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro (to be fair, the U.S.models also carried 2GB of RAM as opposed to the 1GB on the international model). The Samsung Galaxy S II had different chips in different models within the U.S. market. For example, the T-Mobile version of the phone had a dual-core 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon S3 while the AT&T and Sprint variants were powered by a dual-core 1.2GHz Samsung Exynos processor.
source: Qualcomm, ArsTechnica via TechRadar
1. Daftama (Posts: 598; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
Bring it...The Next Big Thing Note 3 or Galaxy Q
2. terabyteRouser (Posts: 457; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Did Samsung think we weren't going to find out?
10. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
I don't think they really cared. Qualcomm of course cares so they announce it to everyone to promote the Qualcomm 600.
16. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
Sucks for people getting the US version. The Exynos 5 is more powerful with better GPU, CPU and better battery life. And it doesn't make oyur phone run super hot like snapdragon. Its stupid the onyl reason there using the krait 300 is because the carriers force them to support all the bands.
19. bigstrudel (Posts: 518; Member since: 20 Aug 2012)
Who cares real life performance will be exactly the same. There has been ZERO battery testing on the Exynos Octa. Pure conjecture. It hasnt even been demo'd yet. The S4's in New York were all running Snapdragon 600s.
26. Guest_star (Posts: 231; Member since: 30 Dec 2011)
how do you know that cpu is better and that consumes less power in exynos than in snapragon 600? have you tested it? and about that heat from snapdragon compared with exynos, done some more tests? please share them with us via video or something...(in case if someone did not notice i am being sarcastic because i hate comments like these that have no foundation to stand on)
28. terabyteRouser (Posts: 457; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
It is not a stretch to hypothesize that a processor with two quad cores would use more battery.
34. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
It is also not a stretch to hypothesize that the lower power cores would be running a majority of the time, which would make the two quad chip use less battery.
29. terabyteRouser (Posts: 457; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
I thought it was funny. This is the equivalent of advertising a computer with an Intel processor without specifying the model. I think it's funny because, it was as if they didn't want to admit that they had no leg in the processor department with their competition.
31. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
Snapdragon is like amd, there cpus are cheap but they work okay. Tegra 4 is like Intel, much faster cpu but cos more. Exynos octa is between a tegra 4 and snapdragon 600. There is also a big.little hack that allows all 8 cores to run at once.
33. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
I have no idea how you can infer that from Samsung not mentioning the processor. I am pretty sure they didn't mention the hardware because they concentrated on the software. They didn't even mention the screen much. In fact, not mentioning does not benefit them in anyway so why would they hide it?
It probably hurt them more if anything. The Samsung hating sites like Pocketnow and The Verge even went as far as saying the GS4 was using the now ancient, in relative terms, S4 pro. Which would really give HTC an edge in North America if that was the case.
3. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
What about Snapdragon 800, Samsung? Samsung should've wait for the 800 before they release the S4.
5. darkskoliro (Posts: 1058; Member since: 07 May 2012)
but then ONE and Z will already have half the 2013 customers, and then S4 will have too much competition with iPH and MotoX second half of 2013
17. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
Apple is mid range now. They don't deserve to be compared to new phones.
8. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
I don't think they have much competition. Just Apple.
9. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Yes, I agree. They definitely should have waited. Let's hope that the Exynos 5 Octa doesn't outperform the Qualcomm 600 too badly.
21. bigstrudel (Posts: 518; Member since: 20 Aug 2012)
Why? Tech enthusiasts that care about stuff like this are probably 1% of their target consumers and are the only people that care which processor they have. As if it matters since both will likely run flawlessly.
Their concern is making money pure and simple and Samsung has got to strike while the iron is hot. Unveiling and releasing the S4 six months before the iPhone just makes sense rather than competing head to head.
35. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
It is actually a pretty big step up, especially the gpu. Go look at the comparisons. I know it doesn't really matter to Samsung in the big picture but it still gives them another marketing tool at the very least and would improve popularity with the tech crowd.
32. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
The 800 would be on par with the exynos 5 but it wouldnt have the powersaver cpu.
37. akki20892 (Posts: 3784; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)
i hope nokia choose intel i3 or i5 or maybe i7 powerful one.....!!! if they then it will great......!!! just dreaming
39. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Maybe a 2.3 GHz Quad Core Intel Core i7 processor. Oh, and 3 GB of ram. (dreaming)........
41. akki20892 (Posts: 3784; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)
yeah men, dreaming is good. Lol......!!!
4. joey18 (Posts: 574; Member since: 20 Jul 2010)
sammy fail so who is going to copy lg -htc or nokia
6. true1984 (Posts: 686; Member since: 23 May 2012)
i thought the Sprint version of the SII was the one with the Exynos, not the AT&T version
11. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
None of the US models had the Exynos. Just the Canadian Bell/Virgin model and the international global one.
Which makes me wonder. If Bell pays extra for the Exynos 5 Octa plus LTE, they can market the hell out of it and get people to switch. I don't know if Samsung would allow that but they should go for it. I'll buy the Bell one and unlock it if it had the Exynos again.
12. galanoth (Posts: 393; Member since: 26 Nov 2011)
Both Sprint and AT&T had Exynos in their Galaxy S 2 models.
For the Galaxy S 3, all USA carriers used a dual-core Snapdragon.
18. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
No, I am pretty sure that every US variant used the crapdragon S3. Only the Bell/Virgin model used the Exynos in North America. Let me double check and I'll post if I am wrong.
Which makes you wonder. How did Qualcomm improve so much from the crapdragon S3? LOL
20. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
My bad. The Epic 4G touch and the AT&T does have an Exynos according to Phonearena.
The Bell/Virgin one was the only one that looked like the original international one.
22. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4174; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
AT&T had 2 versions of the S2, one with Exynos and HSPA+, and one with the S3 and LTE. The Sprint version also had Exynos.
The HSPA+ AT&T model was the closest thing in the U.S to the international model with its 4.3" display and Exynos, all the others either had 4.5" displays, S3's, or both.
30. ThirdEye (Posts: 23; Member since: 31 Oct 2012)
ATT had Exynos based S2 initially was before ATT had a LTE network.
Once ATT officially opened its LTE network, it had Galaxy Skyrocket which used Snapdragon S3 +LTE. And Exynos was history.
Sprint it was WiMax at that time and QC did not concentrate on WiMax so the WiMax baseband chips could be paired with any SOC. So Sprint S2 was able to have Exynos....
Just to see the stranglehold that QC has in the US baseband market ever since LTE and 42Mbps HSPA+ plus became the network mantra in the US. There were only 2 manufacturers that used non QualComm baseband LTE chip on their phones.
Samsung did a VIA telecom baseband for the Verizon Galaxy Nexus model alone. And there were lot of initial hic-cups there...
Motorola had a home grown Wrigley baseband chipset and hence was able to pair TI SOCs with that in case of the Driod Bionic for Verizon LTE compatibility.
Except for that two, Qualcomm has a total stranglehold on the LTE market in the US. Samsung was able to use Exynos 4 in its US Galaxy note only after Qualcomm MDM 99xx was available
13. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5685; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
the Epic 4G Touch was an Exynos variant and the strictly HSPA+ variant which was pretty much the international model through and through was made available through AT&T but AT&T also offered an LTE capable SII which was powered by a Crapdragon S3.
15. Blazers (Posts: 321; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
The AT&T LTE GS 2 model (known as the skyrocket), was basically the same phone as T-Mobiles version, and both are inferior to the Exynos HSPA+ model
14. SamsungTheSavior (banned) (Posts: 19; Member since: 15 Mar 2013)
The galaxy s4 is the most revolutionary device yet!
23. gallitoking (Posts: 4704; Member since: 17 May 2011)
excuses excuses Samsung as I dont see any other manufacturer have this issue..
36. Taters (Posts: 4667; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Um, what issue? This article is talking about how the GS4 uses the Qualcomm 600 and Samsung didn't even report it, Qualcomm did.
Are you just hating for the sake of hating? Because you look really stupid right now. haha
24. zhiae (Posts: 187; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)
Exynos 5410 snapdragon adont need you if u have 2000hz cpu okayy?
40. bluescreen (Posts: 154; Member since: 22 Nov 2012)
please hire a translator next time before posting on here again okayy?
25. bluescreen (Posts: 154; Member since: 22 Nov 2012)
and samsung said they would sell 10million of these in the 1st month? not with specs like this they wont....their smartphone now is just as powerful as every other on the market...i'll be waiting for the note 3....
27. tomn1ce (Posts: 115; Member since: 12 Mar 2012)
Hopefully the Note 3 will have the snapdragon 800 and keep the same overall size as the Note 2 with a bigger display. With a bigger battery as well like a 3300-3600 man battery.
38. Muayyad (Posts: 198; Member since: 05 Oct 2012)
That would be good to test snapdragon 600 variant with ocata's. I expect shocking results related to the claimed "better battery life with 4+4 cores"
42. BenCjamin (Posts: 80; Member since: 13 May 2011)
The whole reason i have bought samsung in the past was because of their superior processors to the competition. I currently have the GSII with the exynos chip for AT&T and it has been great. But now that they are putting snapdragon processors in their handsets so i am looking at the competition now because though their processors were superior, their UI leaves something to be desired and i will be either waiting for the new note or possibly looking at other phones from either motorola or sony.