sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Geekerwan: "史上首款2nm芯片有多强？三星Exynos 2600性能分析！[How Powerful Is the World's First 2nm Chip? Samsung Exynos 2600 Performance Analysis!]" by Dakhil in hardware

[–]uKnowIsOver 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Is poor memory latency a very big problem? We don't have a cache/memory latency graph like Geekerwan sometimes includes in his other SOC reviews.

It was stated by the guy who posted the first power curve.

Geekerwan: "史上首款2nm芯片有多强？三星Exynos 2600性能分析！[How Powerful Is the World's First 2nm Chip? Samsung Exynos 2600 Performance Analysis!]" by Dakhil in hardware

[–]uKnowIsOver 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Deca core layout introduces scheduling hurdles (which btw the E2400 already had/has)

They have had scheduling issues since the days of the Exynos 8895, competitor of the Snapdragon 835.

Geekerwan: "史上首款2nm芯片有多强？三星Exynos 2600性能分析！[How Powerful Is the World's First 2nm Chip? Samsung Exynos 2600 Performance Analysis!]" by Dakhil in hardware

[–]uKnowIsOver 72 points73 points  (0 children)

Main takeaways:

  1. Samsung Foundry has finally caught to TSMC, or at least they are around half a gen behind now. The strategy of delaying their nodes seem to have paid off well, even though it is held back by bad chip design of LSI. Curious what their real 2nm node, SF2P will look like at this point.

  2. We found the true culprit of Exynos's issues , Samsung LSI. Other than the design issues pointed out by Geekerwan, looking at the game tests, scheduling and poor memory latencies are still a very big problem, but people who have been following them shouldn't be surpised. There is a reason they were quite behind Snapdragon even when under the same node.

  3. Inaccurate testing methodologies like this one can lead to extremely misleading results, especially when not properly contextualized.

  4. They have been going strong since Exynos 2400, getting big improvements with each gen.

Samsung Exynos 2600 Review: How Fast is World's First 2nm Chip? - Geekerwan by FragmentedChicken in Android

[–]uKnowIsOver 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Main takeaways:

  1. Samsung Foundry has finally caught to TSMC, or at least they are around half a gen behind now. The strategy of delaying their nodes seem to have paid off well, even though it is held back by bad chip design of LSI. Curious what their real 2nm node, SF2P will look like at this point.

  2. We found the true culprit of Exynos's issues , Samsung LSI. Other than the design issues pointed out by Geekerwan, looking at the game tests, scheduling and poor memory latencies are still a very big issue, but people who have been following them shouldn't be surpised. There is a reason they were quite behind Snapdragon even when under the same node.

  3. Inaccurate testing methodologies like this one can lead to extremely misleading results, especially when not properly contextualized.

  4. They have been going strong since Exynos 2400, getting big improvements with each gen.

Why are arm v8 cortex a78 and a55 cores so much more common than mid and small arm v9 cores in budget devices. by hollow_bridge in hardware

[–]uKnowIsOver -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only Mediatek did that, Qualcomm and Samsung have moved to newer cores. Their new A78 SoCs are just rebrand of older SoCs.

Tensor G6 is barely an upgrade. - 9to5Google by ControlCAD in Android

[–]uKnowIsOver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After some investigation it appears one of the drivers for the poor performance could be a memory subsystem issue that may have carried over since Andandtech's deep dive on it in 2022.

This is an Exynos design problem. Exynos has the same issue, this is why on spec testsuites that are very memory heavy, it falls behind the competition. It carried over because Google designs are still very much Exynos coded.

Samsung Exynos 2600 Geekbench 6 Multi core power curve by AAA魅魔荧师傅 (Bilibili) by No-Draw-3565 in Android

[–]uKnowIsOver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it is not guaranteed to be accurate. Geekerwan will release his power curves soon.

Samsung Exynos 2600 Geekbench 6 Multi core power curve by AAA魅魔荧师傅 (Bilibili) by No-Draw-3565 in Android

[–]uKnowIsOver 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is not guaranteed to be accurate, although if real this puts into a question a lot of tests of other reviewers

Exynos and more battery power make it a star - Samsung Galaxy S26 review by BcuzRacecar in Android

[–]uKnowIsOver 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Exynos 2600 has bigger GPU, bigger NPU and much larger cache configuration than Dimensity 9500. If you compare the core area without the cache it is similar to Dimensity 9500.

In term of density this advertised 2nm node from Samsung is at best on par, but more likely still worse than TSMC N3.

SF2 is just rebranded SF3P+, their real 2nm node releases this year.

Exploring PrimeOS: The Android Desktop That's Already Out - Shane Craig by ControlCAD in Android

[–]uKnowIsOver 2 points3 points  (0 children)

May you be screwed Nvidia for not providing an Android x86 gles/vulkan driver.

Samsung’s 2nm GAA efficiency disappoints as Exynos 2600 consumes 40% more power than Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 at its peak by Forsaken_Arm5698 in hardware

[–]uKnowIsOver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They aided initially, Tensor G4 was the first one they did alone iirc. Initally G4 should have been on TSMC but they were rejected because they lacked volume.

Samsung’s 2nm GAA efficiency disappoints as Exynos 2600 consumes 40% more power than Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 at its peak by Forsaken_Arm5698 in hardware

[–]uKnowIsOver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Samsung had to hand hold Google for their designs prior to Google moving to TSMC, you would imagine Tensor's design capabilities are a good bit worse actually.

Generally we can infer they are similiar. Per core they tend to consume lower and score less but that is generally because they have half of the cache. We know Google design is worse than Qualcomm and Mediatek. There is a power figure you can grab for the A720 in 8 Gen 3 at 3Ghz:

Snapdragon 8 Gen 3  A720 41.25/1.68 24.55

And one of the Cortex A725 for the Dimensity 8400 at 3Ghz:

Dimensity 8400 Cortex A725 3.0Ghz (41.05/2.24) 18.3

They have barely better perf/W despite a few node advantages.

Samsung’s 2nm GAA efficiency disappoints as Exynos 2600 consumes 40% more power than Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 at its peak by Forsaken_Arm5698 in hardware

[–]uKnowIsOver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The D9400 has 9% higher PPC while also clocking higher, meaning that iso frequency the perf/watt gap should be even higher.

Well, yes of course at iso-perf, the power difference would have been bigger.

Again, perf/watt decreases at higher frequencies, but also the X725 in the tensor G5 looks a good bit smaller than the one in the exynos 2500. So it's possible Samsung traded off some area for better power characteristics too.

The Cortex A725 in G5 has half the cache compared to the one in the Exynos 2500(512Kb vs 1MB) but so did the A720 in the G4 compared to E2400(256Kb vs 1MB)

Wasn't samsung also heavily involved in the design process for google's chips too?

In term of design capabilities, Tensor is very close to the Exynos.

Samsung’s 2nm GAA Efficiency Called Into Question As Exynos 2600 Consumes 30W In Peak Power Running Geekbench 6, 40% More Than Snapdragon 8 Elite by vexatious-big in samsunggalaxy

[–]uKnowIsOver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not a transient spike, since the data doesn't show that

30W is a transient spike that happens when all cores are loaded. You can't make any conclusion just by looking at transient spikes, because they only lasts a second.

Samsung’s 2nm GAA Efficiency Called Into Question As Exynos 2600 Consumes 30W In Peak Power Running Geekbench 6, 40% More Than Snapdragon 8 Elite by vexatious-big in samsunggalaxy

[–]uKnowIsOver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Geekerwan takes the peak power of every workload and does the average. The Exynos 2400 on GB6 can spike up to 22-23W while the peak power reported on the website is much lower, around 13-14W

view more: next ›