Samsung's Exynos 7420 SoC is 30 to 35% more power efficient compared to 20nm processors
posted by Luis D. / Feb 16, 2015, 3:36 AM
Preliminary benchmarks proved we're looking at a spectacular chipset that closely matches Qualcomm's cutting-edge processor's performance and is made on an ahead-of-its-time 14nm process. We now learn that the 7420 SoC, which packs an octa-core processor and a Mali-T760 graphics unit, has its power consumption reduced by 30 to 35% percent compared to the previous generation 20nm chipsets, making for a low power, high performance package.
The processor is made on three-dimensional (3D) FinFET transistor technology, used to overcome the limitations of the typical 2D plane (Planar structure). Intel has been using this method for its desktop processors for a while, but Samsung prides itself on being the first to bring this approach to the cramped 14nm mobile application processor die. It will continue using this process in the production of its other semiconductor modules, such as its NAND memory chips, which could lead to smaller chips with increased capacity in the future.
As for the Exynos 7420, the company plans to expand its usage into "a variety of products this year". We take that as a hint that upcoming Galaxy devices other than the S6 / Edge, such as the Galaxy Note 5 / Edge will also rely on Samsung's latest accomplishment in application processors.
source: Samsung Korea (Translated)
Posts: 715; Member since: May 18, 2014
That's good. Less energy=less overheating=less throttling.
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 3:42 AM 17
Posts: 49; Member since: Sep 18, 2013
Is there particular reason you PA skip Galaxy Note 5 and go directly to 6 - "such as the Galaxy Note 6 / Edge"??? Latest available is Note 4 after all.
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 3:42 AM 0
Posts: 345; Member since: May 21, 2013
looks, there is a catch here. samsung did not mention" more power efficiency than snapdragon 810" but " more power efficiency than 20nm" i think what samsung mention is comparing exynos 543x (20nm) vs exynos 7420 (14nm)/ lets wait both 810 and 7420 in the market, then we decide which is more power efficiency, giving that both are now have similar performance.
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 3:51 AM 0
Posts: 2198; Member since: Jan 16, 2011
The Exynos will be on par with the 810 in terms of battery life, but you can already see that the 810 will have to run at 50% speed to match the Exynos 7 series which will be running at 75-100% over the same time... Qualcomm are mere amateurs in the game of BigLittle... TBH I would not touch the 810 with a 40' pole. Exynos FTW. Samsung have learned. They have refined. They have delivered :)
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 3:58 PM 0
Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 27, 2014
Antutu.. really? Don't just compare Exynos 7420 and S8100. Add S805, S800, Exynos 5430, Tegra 4, etc. You will see numbers all over the places. The benchmark is not consistent and not reliable to extrapolate performance numbers.
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 4:40 AM 0
Posts: 241; Member since: Oct 01, 2014
Well I was hoping to change to another OEM, but with this problematic S810 inside, and with the release of a 14 nm chip, I "have to" stick with Sammy
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 6:40 AM 1
Posts: 2014; Member since: May 26, 2011
Read the anandtech article and S810 was in similar ball park as Exynos 5 (Note4) exception of graphics performance. So how is this thing supposed to compete with the new big dogs in the market? Don't forget, devices tested by Anandtech were reference devices from Qualcomm which doesn't prioritize exterior design which won't impact thermal performance of the devices from most OEMs
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 9:38 AM 1
Posts: 631; Member since: Sep 23, 2013
Is this difference between 14nm finfet and 20nm planar correct as it seems the only advantage is only more power efficient and very slight performance gain!
posted on Feb 16, 2015, 11:57 AM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):