Material from Qualcomm Snapdragon was split to List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices on 2015-06-30. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Qualcomm Snapdragon. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Hey, I'd just like to propose a move of this new page to List of Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs (instead of the current List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices) or something similar to reduce potential confusion. This would pave the way for us to separate out the utilizing devices lists into a separate List of devices using Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs page like was done with the List of devices using Mediatek SoCs and MediaTek pages. Charwinger21 ( talk) 21:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
From sources at codeaurora it seem likely that the next Snapdragon 835 is the MSM8998, codenamed MSM-cobalt. In addition there will be the Snapdragon X16 (4G) using the WTR5975 RF transceiver, and the Snapdragon X50 (5G) using the 28GHz SDR051 mmWave transceiver. Jahibadkaret ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 34 external links on List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.houseofjapan.com/electronics/toshiba-regza-is11t-phone{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://press.asus.com/asus-announces-next-generation-padfone-infinity/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://gsminsider.com/2013/07/refreshed-oppo-find-5-snapdragon-600/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I had to revert the mass change and removal of information of the page as it made it a mess and hard to follow. Nothing on the talk page here shows this was discussed or gained consensus. ContentEditman ( talk) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
to User ContentEditman: All the information is in place. 1. Separated ARMv6 / ARMv7 / ARMv8, as on the pages of Exynos and MediaTek. This separates the old SoCs from the new ones. Now do not need to specify the architecture version in each line. All information is saved. 2. All tables get the same columns. Earlier, the 800 series had a different column structure, which was confusing, tables had exceeds the width of the screens. All information is saved. 3. The same information is combined. This is done according to the example of new models. For example, all Snapdragon S4 Pro chips support Bluetooth 4.0, 802.11n (2.4 / 5 GHz). Why write 3 times, if we can write once. All information is saved. "it made it a mess"? No. It has become easier to search and read. "hard to follow"? No. To switch from the modern 600 series to the modern 800 series, it is enough to press the PgDn one time. In the old version, you have to pass through all the obsolete SoC every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.170.192 ( talk) 18:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If you do not like the division of the architecture of the processor, suggest how else to split old and new systems? This is not an archive. The information should be convenient. When between Snapdragon 670 and Snapdragon 835 two screens of old models it is inconvenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.170.192 ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm breaking this here for clarity -- Cheers,
Alfie. (
Say Hi!)
22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: Previously, there was an RFC here. Now there is not. -- Cheers, Alfie. ( Say Hi!) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not amazingly polite to revert a user who is being WP:BOLD, and even less polite to edit war with them. The whole point of that guideline is to encourage editors to make edits they feel there is consensus for. Then, if other editors disagree that there is consensus, they can discuss that on the talk page. Sure, the IP user is being somewhat inflammatory, but I'd really appreciate if you would listen to their comments; they are definitely trying to improve the content of the article: A someone who uses and develops on SoC-based computers (including some from Qualcomm), the architecture of the chip is a relevant way to tell them apart. I can't run an ARMv6 build of Debian on an ARMv7 SoC, even if everything else was identical. There is certainly some middle-ground here, and I think it'd be worthwhile trying to find that middle ground: I think you should both also read the MOS guidelines on Lists, if you haven't already. -- Cheers, Alfie. ( Say Hi!) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@ ContentEditman: I'm calling you out here. I'm trying to find a solution to this dispute, and outbursts like that are not helpful. I understand this is frustrating, but, please: The IP has stated their proposal, please state yours. I'll come back to this in the morning an open an RFC if I have both proposals. -- Cheers, Alfie. ( Say Hi!) 02:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
For all tables that contain models of SoCs that have only LTE version (and version without modem) I suggest removing "supporting LTE FDD, LTE TDD, WCDMA (3C-HSDPA, DC-HSUPA), CDMA1x, EV-DO Rev. B, TD-SCDMA and GSM/EDGE". This information is redundant, repeated in each line and takes up a lot of space: Snapdragon 410 and up, 615 and up. 87.226.160.250 ( talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
On SD 700 Codec i think it's not 240fps on FHD and only 120FPS on HD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:7F9:3CF0:A98D:5457:65DB:819A ( talk) 10:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this column really necessary? The information it contains is, IMO, not very useful and makes the tables almost impossible to navigate, especially for popular SoCs. Perhaps these lists can be split out into a separate table listing only the SoC, if not simply deleted? 175.45.116.69 ( talk) 23:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I removed the "Devices using it" from the Snapdragon S1 section. So the rest would look similar to that if its removed. After doing so I believe it looks much better and removes something that is not needed or useful. ContentEditman ( talk) 13:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Just cleaned the Snapdragon S2 section. ContentEditman ( talk) 03:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Many editors add information only about devices. To delete information from the main tables, the information should be transferred to additional tables or to another page. -- 46.39.231.245 ( talk) 13:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I just finished removing them from the legacy chips, Snapdragon S1,2,3,4. ContentEditman ( talk) 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I am disappointed this information was outright removed without relocating it or being preserved in any way. Other users have expressed interest as it provided aggregate information on all phones using that SoC. This would not make sense on any single phone page as it has been argued. Also the argument that some phones use different SoCs depending on region only applies to a tiny fraction of the phones and does not render the whole section invalid. This can be easily fixed by marking said phones and providing additional information. That being said, I plan to reintroduce this information into the article. I am open to suggestions on location and format, as I can agree that the previous version might've looked cluttered. Wikisthesia ( talk) 08:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Came here looking up phones using a particular chip just to see "devices using it" section was removed for no good reason. Now the article looks more like Qualcomm marketing material rather than a practical wealth of knowledge. 86.23.32.51 ( talk) 04:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As this was agreed to before the information varies from market to market. That and this page is about Snapdragon SOCs, not devices that use them. Do not add back as this went through RFC before and was agreed upon with edits and updates made here. If you want to add to a device page that would be the best place for this information. ContentEditman ( talk) 16:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Devices using Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip from an old revision of this article. People are welcome to edit it. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This is an exhaustive and unhelpful list section. How are these architectures similar?? The title of this section should be 'Different platforms' or 'Competing platforms', and contain informative text, not a list. Sbalfour ( talk) 00:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The net seems wiped of this information and references are hard to find. So this is a request/challenge to shed some light on it. If you have a look at certain LPDDR4 chip datasheets from Micron, there seem to be all sorts of configuration, resp. chip organisation per dram package (2x 16bit, 4x16bit, 1x 32bit, 2x 32bit, 1x 64bit). Note that the LPDDR4 standard only defines pin layout per dram die, not per package, and says that dies are split internally into two "channels" each of 16bit width.
So, as a manufacturer, you may be able to connect dram to the SoC using a dual channel, 32 bit wide memory bus connection, connecting each channel to
Looking at the publicly available SoC datasheets for the SDM630 and SDM660, you currently only find a dram frequency and the information of a "dual channel" memory bus, but it is unclear, if each of these CPU memory busses is 16bits or 32bits wide. Looking at a secondary source, phonedb.net, there is information about memory bus width for these Qualcomm SoCs (stating 2x 16bits memory bus for the SDM630, but 2x 32bits memory bus for the SDM660). There is a single reason to doubt this information, namely Qualcomm, that states that SDM630 and SDM660 are pin compatible (which suggests the pin layout of the memory bus per channel and the number of channels being the same for both of these SoCs).
Doing exhaustive crawling of the web, I was unable to dig up pin layouts for both of these Qualcomm SoCs, so I hope somebody else may shed some light on this issue. -- 91.55.169.239 ( talk) 02:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
~7.5 GB/s
, derived from 1x 32bit/8 * (933 * 2) / 1000
~21.3 GB/s
, derived from 2x 32bit/8 * (1333 * 2) / 1000
21.3/7.5
) compared to SD626 devices (in the optimum case that both channels are populated, of course). The Geekbench4 benchmark results, however, are nowhere near this factor. Instead, they show about equal results in memory bandwidth test component.~10.66 GB/s
, derived from 2x 16bit/8 * (1333 * 2) / 1000
10.66/7.5
) should be seen. --
91.55.164.242 (
talk)
03:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Dual-channel LPDDR4 at 1866MHz 29.9GB/s
, i.e. 2x32bit wide bus for the SD660. So there is a bunch of sources for this claim, despite the rumors that this supposedly does not pair with the benchmarks observable using Geekbench. --
84.135.122.139 (
talk)
20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)2x 16-bit @ 1866MHz LPDDR4 14.9GB/s
, but 2x 32-bit in the announcement of SD660 earlier, in 2017. So there are two semi-official sources that portray the uncertainty very well. I've added both bus widths and these references to the article table for quick access and for readers to see that there's no definite answer currently. If anyone has a better source, do not hesitate to edit and update. --
93.201.166.8 (
talk)
02:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Seem to be an issue there. HD is possible with only 120 FPS while FHD is possible with 240 FPS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1203:ECBD:A300:1412:A1AD:47CC:9BCB ( talk) 14:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Devices using Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip from an old revision of this article. People are welcome to edit it. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 18:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of accronym in the lower sections of the article, like "D & E". I couldn't find their meaning in the article. Could someone clarify this and edit the article accordingly? Please. Thanks!
That is the "Hardware codec supported" section. So D refers to Decode and E refers to Encode. ContentEditman ( talk) 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
These SoCs are vastly different in almost all aspects. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 13:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose to move Hardware codec section to Qualcomm Hexagon article, because it is the Hexagon that handles this and to make the article cleaner, Bensuperpc, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensuperpc ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Snapdragon 4, 6, 8 Gen 1 (2022) processors are listed twice.
There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source. [1] Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
CoolingGibbon, please don't move large pages without discussing on the talk page, especially when the page name has been previously discussed on the talk page. 198.52.130.108 ( talk) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The current structure of the page has one entry each for all of the 700 and 800 Snapdragon SoC lists, but also one entry each for the Snapdragon 7g1 series, 7g2 series, 8g1 series etc. which is quite biased towards the SoCs before the new naming scheme. This seems quite unhelpful to me, when the SoCs with the new naming scheme are much less in quantity (and success :P) and span a much smaller time each. Like, why would you have one chapter for a series spanning roughly a year and one chapter for a series spanning 9 years? That's ridiculous structuring. I propose merging the entries in the chapter view (I'm not sure what it's called) to have one entry for all Snapdragon mobile 7 series SoCs and one entry for all mobile 8 series SoCs, since having one entry for each SoC is a little too much and impossible with the regroup of all 6xx, 7xx and 8xx processors into one list each. 84.171.31.162 ( talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
sdm660
family internally). Last year however someone decided to put all of them in one table, which is awful for browsing for 90% of all SoC's on the page.
Bobos808 (
talk)
12:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Crtl + F
or the search function on mobile to find the correct SoCs while the article would be easier to navigate in my opinion.
RM12 (
talk)
10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Material from Qualcomm Snapdragon was split to List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices on 2015-06-30. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Qualcomm Snapdragon. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Hey, I'd just like to propose a move of this new page to List of Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs (instead of the current List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices) or something similar to reduce potential confusion. This would pave the way for us to separate out the utilizing devices lists into a separate List of devices using Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs page like was done with the List of devices using Mediatek SoCs and MediaTek pages. Charwinger21 ( talk) 21:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
From sources at codeaurora it seem likely that the next Snapdragon 835 is the MSM8998, codenamed MSM-cobalt. In addition there will be the Snapdragon X16 (4G) using the WTR5975 RF transceiver, and the Snapdragon X50 (5G) using the 28GHz SDR051 mmWave transceiver. Jahibadkaret ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 34 external links on List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.houseofjapan.com/electronics/toshiba-regza-is11t-phone{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://press.asus.com/asus-announces-next-generation-padfone-infinity/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://gsminsider.com/2013/07/refreshed-oppo-find-5-snapdragon-600/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I had to revert the mass change and removal of information of the page as it made it a mess and hard to follow. Nothing on the talk page here shows this was discussed or gained consensus. ContentEditman ( talk) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
to User ContentEditman: All the information is in place. 1. Separated ARMv6 / ARMv7 / ARMv8, as on the pages of Exynos and MediaTek. This separates the old SoCs from the new ones. Now do not need to specify the architecture version in each line. All information is saved. 2. All tables get the same columns. Earlier, the 800 series had a different column structure, which was confusing, tables had exceeds the width of the screens. All information is saved. 3. The same information is combined. This is done according to the example of new models. For example, all Snapdragon S4 Pro chips support Bluetooth 4.0, 802.11n (2.4 / 5 GHz). Why write 3 times, if we can write once. All information is saved. "it made it a mess"? No. It has become easier to search and read. "hard to follow"? No. To switch from the modern 600 series to the modern 800 series, it is enough to press the PgDn one time. In the old version, you have to pass through all the obsolete SoC every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.170.192 ( talk) 18:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If you do not like the division of the architecture of the processor, suggest how else to split old and new systems? This is not an archive. The information should be convenient. When between Snapdragon 670 and Snapdragon 835 two screens of old models it is inconvenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.207.170.192 ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm breaking this here for clarity -- Cheers,
Alfie. (
Say Hi!)
22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: Previously, there was an RFC here. Now there is not. -- Cheers, Alfie. ( Say Hi!) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not amazingly polite to revert a user who is being WP:BOLD, and even less polite to edit war with them. The whole point of that guideline is to encourage editors to make edits they feel there is consensus for. Then, if other editors disagree that there is consensus, they can discuss that on the talk page. Sure, the IP user is being somewhat inflammatory, but I'd really appreciate if you would listen to their comments; they are definitely trying to improve the content of the article: A someone who uses and develops on SoC-based computers (including some from Qualcomm), the architecture of the chip is a relevant way to tell them apart. I can't run an ARMv6 build of Debian on an ARMv7 SoC, even if everything else was identical. There is certainly some middle-ground here, and I think it'd be worthwhile trying to find that middle ground: I think you should both also read the MOS guidelines on Lists, if you haven't already. -- Cheers, Alfie. ( Say Hi!) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@ ContentEditman: I'm calling you out here. I'm trying to find a solution to this dispute, and outbursts like that are not helpful. I understand this is frustrating, but, please: The IP has stated their proposal, please state yours. I'll come back to this in the morning an open an RFC if I have both proposals. -- Cheers, Alfie. ( Say Hi!) 02:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
For all tables that contain models of SoCs that have only LTE version (and version without modem) I suggest removing "supporting LTE FDD, LTE TDD, WCDMA (3C-HSDPA, DC-HSUPA), CDMA1x, EV-DO Rev. B, TD-SCDMA and GSM/EDGE". This information is redundant, repeated in each line and takes up a lot of space: Snapdragon 410 and up, 615 and up. 87.226.160.250 ( talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
On SD 700 Codec i think it's not 240fps on FHD and only 120FPS on HD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:7F9:3CF0:A98D:5457:65DB:819A ( talk) 10:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this column really necessary? The information it contains is, IMO, not very useful and makes the tables almost impossible to navigate, especially for popular SoCs. Perhaps these lists can be split out into a separate table listing only the SoC, if not simply deleted? 175.45.116.69 ( talk) 23:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I removed the "Devices using it" from the Snapdragon S1 section. So the rest would look similar to that if its removed. After doing so I believe it looks much better and removes something that is not needed or useful. ContentEditman ( talk) 13:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Just cleaned the Snapdragon S2 section. ContentEditman ( talk) 03:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Many editors add information only about devices. To delete information from the main tables, the information should be transferred to additional tables or to another page. -- 46.39.231.245 ( talk) 13:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I just finished removing them from the legacy chips, Snapdragon S1,2,3,4. ContentEditman ( talk) 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I am disappointed this information was outright removed without relocating it or being preserved in any way. Other users have expressed interest as it provided aggregate information on all phones using that SoC. This would not make sense on any single phone page as it has been argued. Also the argument that some phones use different SoCs depending on region only applies to a tiny fraction of the phones and does not render the whole section invalid. This can be easily fixed by marking said phones and providing additional information. That being said, I plan to reintroduce this information into the article. I am open to suggestions on location and format, as I can agree that the previous version might've looked cluttered. Wikisthesia ( talk) 08:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Came here looking up phones using a particular chip just to see "devices using it" section was removed for no good reason. Now the article looks more like Qualcomm marketing material rather than a practical wealth of knowledge. 86.23.32.51 ( talk) 04:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As this was agreed to before the information varies from market to market. That and this page is about Snapdragon SOCs, not devices that use them. Do not add back as this went through RFC before and was agreed upon with edits and updates made here. If you want to add to a device page that would be the best place for this information. ContentEditman ( talk) 16:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Devices using Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip from an old revision of this article. People are welcome to edit it. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This is an exhaustive and unhelpful list section. How are these architectures similar?? The title of this section should be 'Different platforms' or 'Competing platforms', and contain informative text, not a list. Sbalfour ( talk) 00:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The net seems wiped of this information and references are hard to find. So this is a request/challenge to shed some light on it. If you have a look at certain LPDDR4 chip datasheets from Micron, there seem to be all sorts of configuration, resp. chip organisation per dram package (2x 16bit, 4x16bit, 1x 32bit, 2x 32bit, 1x 64bit). Note that the LPDDR4 standard only defines pin layout per dram die, not per package, and says that dies are split internally into two "channels" each of 16bit width.
So, as a manufacturer, you may be able to connect dram to the SoC using a dual channel, 32 bit wide memory bus connection, connecting each channel to
Looking at the publicly available SoC datasheets for the SDM630 and SDM660, you currently only find a dram frequency and the information of a "dual channel" memory bus, but it is unclear, if each of these CPU memory busses is 16bits or 32bits wide. Looking at a secondary source, phonedb.net, there is information about memory bus width for these Qualcomm SoCs (stating 2x 16bits memory bus for the SDM630, but 2x 32bits memory bus for the SDM660). There is a single reason to doubt this information, namely Qualcomm, that states that SDM630 and SDM660 are pin compatible (which suggests the pin layout of the memory bus per channel and the number of channels being the same for both of these SoCs).
Doing exhaustive crawling of the web, I was unable to dig up pin layouts for both of these Qualcomm SoCs, so I hope somebody else may shed some light on this issue. -- 91.55.169.239 ( talk) 02:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
~7.5 GB/s
, derived from 1x 32bit/8 * (933 * 2) / 1000
~21.3 GB/s
, derived from 2x 32bit/8 * (1333 * 2) / 1000
21.3/7.5
) compared to SD626 devices (in the optimum case that both channels are populated, of course). The Geekbench4 benchmark results, however, are nowhere near this factor. Instead, they show about equal results in memory bandwidth test component.~10.66 GB/s
, derived from 2x 16bit/8 * (1333 * 2) / 1000
10.66/7.5
) should be seen. --
91.55.164.242 (
talk)
03:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Dual-channel LPDDR4 at 1866MHz 29.9GB/s
, i.e. 2x32bit wide bus for the SD660. So there is a bunch of sources for this claim, despite the rumors that this supposedly does not pair with the benchmarks observable using Geekbench. --
84.135.122.139 (
talk)
20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)2x 16-bit @ 1866MHz LPDDR4 14.9GB/s
, but 2x 32-bit in the announcement of SD660 earlier, in 2017. So there are two semi-official sources that portray the uncertainty very well. I've added both bus widths and these references to the article table for quick access and for readers to see that there's no definite answer currently. If anyone has a better source, do not hesitate to edit and update. --
93.201.166.8 (
talk)
02:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Seem to be an issue there. HD is possible with only 120 FPS while FHD is possible with 240 FPS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1203:ECBD:A300:1412:A1AD:47CC:9BCB ( talk) 14:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Devices using Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip from an old revision of this article. People are welcome to edit it. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 18:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of accronym in the lower sections of the article, like "D & E". I couldn't find their meaning in the article. Could someone clarify this and edit the article accordingly? Please. Thanks!
That is the "Hardware codec supported" section. So D refers to Decode and E refers to Encode. ContentEditman ( talk) 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
These SoCs are vastly different in almost all aspects. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 13:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose to move Hardware codec section to Qualcomm Hexagon article, because it is the Hexagon that handles this and to make the article cleaner, Bensuperpc, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensuperpc ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Snapdragon 4, 6, 8 Gen 1 (2022) processors are listed twice.
There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source. [1] Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
CoolingGibbon, please don't move large pages without discussing on the talk page, especially when the page name has been previously discussed on the talk page. 198.52.130.108 ( talk) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The current structure of the page has one entry each for all of the 700 and 800 Snapdragon SoC lists, but also one entry each for the Snapdragon 7g1 series, 7g2 series, 8g1 series etc. which is quite biased towards the SoCs before the new naming scheme. This seems quite unhelpful to me, when the SoCs with the new naming scheme are much less in quantity (and success :P) and span a much smaller time each. Like, why would you have one chapter for a series spanning roughly a year and one chapter for a series spanning 9 years? That's ridiculous structuring. I propose merging the entries in the chapter view (I'm not sure what it's called) to have one entry for all Snapdragon mobile 7 series SoCs and one entry for all mobile 8 series SoCs, since having one entry for each SoC is a little too much and impossible with the regroup of all 6xx, 7xx and 8xx processors into one list each. 84.171.31.162 ( talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
sdm660
family internally). Last year however someone decided to put all of them in one table, which is awful for browsing for 90% of all SoC's on the page.
Bobos808 (
talk)
12:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Crtl + F
or the search function on mobile to find the correct SoCs while the article would be easier to navigate in my opinion.
RM12 (
talk)
10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)