Samsung and HiSilicon to start selling chips to other smartphone manufacturers
0. phoneArena 15 Jul 2014, 06:43 posted on
Samsung's Exynos and HiSilicon's Kirin have proven that they can stand on their own feet in today's tech market, both now having 64-bit models with up to 8 cores and LTE support. So far, each SoC has been somewhat exclusive to its parent company's product line (Exynos goes in Samsung's line and Kirin fuels Huawei's high-end devices), however both manufacturers have said they plan to sell to other smartphone ODMs.
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Ashoaib (Posts: 3127; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
huawei's hisilicon kirin is not as powerful as qualcomm... they sit between mediatek and qualcomm
18. mistertimi (Posts: 77; Member since: 28 May 2014)
As do the Exynos chips. It's just hugh number of cores and high CPU frequency, but the equivalent Qualcomm chips usually outpace them. As I always say.. Intel = Qualcomm, AMD = Samsung. Numbers don't beat performance, no matter how big they are!
21. ph00ny (Posts: 989; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Seeing how Samsung actually owns fabs and Qualcomm doesn't, it may be the other way around. Exynos was quicker than snapdragon in the previous gen and the new version seems to be kicking some ass
24. iushnt (Posts: 1317; Member since: 06 Feb 2013)
I disagree with your post. Exynos gives same performance as SD even with lower clock speed. When benchmarked, it shows higher scores. .
2. Iodine (Posts: 1201; Member since: 19 Jun 2014)
"...both now having 64-bit models..." Oh I didn't caught that.... Where they have 64-bit models ?
6. TylerGrunter (Posts: 1495; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
I was going to comment the same...
The correct sentence would be "both now having 64-bits models in their pipeline.."
As far as I know there is no 64 bits in the ultramobile market except for the Apple A7 and the Intel BayTrail.
12. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
They have it. Ready for mass production.
Simply , not yet "magic" enthusiasts like Apple.
Samsung will start to use them , when there is real benefit of 64 bit for smartphones(may be soon).
Samsung is not so desperate for useless "magic" like Apple, because have enough real things to offer.
3. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Wow, ADDITIONAL base for Android's fragmentation and Androtakus' excuses.
Qualcomm has been doing well so far with their custom optimizations over stock AOSP, but with this kind of new pressure they'll be too busy with other things than optimizing/updating AOSP.
Qualcomm has been the major merit behind Android's improved update rates over the time, but chaos awaits now.
7. TylerGrunter (Posts: 1495; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
Competition is always good for the consumer.
Qualcomm has been sleeping and has been releasing a slightly modified version of their Krait cores for 2 years now.
The new A17s fro ARM can eat out on Krait (Mediatek, Rockchip), and Exynos can have the first ARMv8 SoC with A57 cores.
8. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
It's not Qualcomm's fault. It's mainly Google's for being lazy with the transition to 64bit.
And you should be aware of the fact that ARM's big.LITTLE configuration lead mostly to benchmark cheating instead of distributing workloads reasonably. Qualcomm did the right thing by ditching LITTLE in this sense.
11. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
It's smart Cpu processing, not cheating where the program detects intense loads that's when it reaches maximum load.
Big little was a fail due to A7 can be clocked upto maximum 2.0ghz, but Samsung relied on clocking at 1.5ghz where it started to lag.
They should've gone for straight 4xA15 instead of 4x4 Cpu. That's where you would see the mighty power of A15 kicking in. Samsung made a mistake using rubbish batteries at 2800mah instead of 3500mah, due to A15 draws 9watts of power vs S800 at 4watts, that shows how weak and less powerful S800 was.
Exynos always ruled the Cpu market. Even Apple were relying and using Exynos socs, but Apple had to pay Samsung patent fees to Samsung to have their logo stamped on it, instead of Exynos.
15. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Where do this crapload come from?
Why don't you just STFU if you don't know anything?
A single CA15 consumes more power than three CA7s together in action.
Both Apple and Qualcomm did amazing jobs in increasing power efficiency of their custom CA15-like cores, thus ditching CA7 altogether.
Apple's A5, A6 were rebranded Exynos?
What are you smoking? The thing you might call "knowledge" seems to be nothing else than a collection of full of garbage like AOSP.
If you want to continue pretending to be a tech-savvy, learn first how ARM SoCs are licensed.
17. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
Use your brain, common sense
And what's your problem?
People are complaining they want S805, S801, S810, they want more speed. You won't complain when Oems start to use 4000mah batteries, and having A15 clocked at 2.5ghz, when there enough battery juice.
Wth is wrong with you.who gives a toss about power efficient. Do you see users give a toss when they drive V8!v10 engines, nagging about petrol. Maybe your a nagging about saving battery. Do you hear Intel i7 users ever complaining about their battery life. Lmao
13. TylerGrunter (Posts: 1495; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
I agree they DID the right thing, two years ago. The problem is that after doing it they did little more. So I'm happy that there is some more competition in the market, at the very least that will push Qualcomm to think of something again.
9. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
Yeap modifying an A9 and taking half of implementation of A15
The joke thing is that it's been over a year and qualcoom even don't have an A15 yet. Still relying on old A9. While Tegra4and Samsung already have an A15. Lmao.
Even Silvermont, Baytrail, Atom Cpu are much better than rubbish Snapdragon.
A typical social used by every Oems.Snapdragon.
There are way much better Cpus than Snapdragon.
16. JakeLee (banned) (Posts: 1021; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Your are a complete joke of a person.
It's amazing to see how much BS one can post with comments.
BayTrail and Atom? Do you think they are different CPUs?
It's just like Krait and SnapDragon.
4. Settings (Posts: 1355; Member since: 02 Jul 2014)
Subpar processor. Suicide to those who will buy it.
5. dratomic (Posts: 483; Member since: 09 Oct 2013)
so finally a powerful exynos should arrive soon
10. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
Exynos was always powerful and always buttkicked Snapdragon.
The problem was LTE socs were not used, due to stingy Samsung didn't wanted to pay extra $15 to due to extra costs.
14. dratomic (Posts: 483; Member since: 09 Oct 2013)
exynos was way better than everybody else in s2. but after that the victory was marginal. i want something that puts others in its dust
19. TheGenius (Posts: 339; Member since: 06 Mar 2014)
S5 exynos is more powerful than snapdragon.!
They can put others in dust anyday.. only if samsung didn't have to produce 2 versions of their phone .. now they NEED TO under power their exynos version to match snapdragon so that users of either version wont complain.!
20. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
That's what I was trying to explain to Jakelee
Exynos needed to underclock the Cpu to match Krait cores, by 700Ghz, orelse Exynos destroys kraits if clocked the same as the S801.
22. ph00ny (Posts: 989; Member since: 26 May 2011)
They would have if they could do it safely
Hopefully newer fab tech/capability they can do so in the near future