Snapdragon 1000 Suggests Qualcomm Is Serious About the PC Market
- Mehedi Hassan
- Jun 25, 2018
-
71
When Microsoft and Qualcomm launched the first set of Always Connected PCs, the performance of most early devices was a bit disappointing. Both the companies obviously saw this coming, with Qualcomm already working on a new ARM processor that’s custom tailored for powering PCs. The company introduced the Snapdragon 850 earlier this month, which promises 30% faster performance and graphics performance, 20% better battery life, and up to 20% improvement in LTE-Advanced speeds than the Snapdragon 835. That’s a solid upgrade, but Qualcomm is already working on what seems to be the next-gen ARM processor for Always Connected PCs.
Meet the Snapdragon 1000 — a powerful new laptop chip from the chip maker to take on Intel’s Y and U series Core processors. The Snapdragon 1000 seems like a major upgrade from the current gen Snapdragon processors, possibly capable of powering desktop systems. WinFuture reports that Qualcomm is currently testing the new chip on a developer platform with up to 16GB of LPDDR4X RAM, two 128GB memory modules connected via UFS2.1, and gigabit LTE. The SoC — possibly socketed — comes in at about 20x15mm, which is bigger than the usual size we have come to expect from Qualcomm but it’s still smaller than Intel’s systems. With a total power draw of 12 watts for the entire SoC, the processor may even need active cooling depending on the maximum power draw and the device design.
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
WinFuture also spotted a job listing from Qualcomm that’s looking for a project engineer to manage test operations of the new Snapdragon 1000 and Snapdragon 845 for desktop systems, HoloLens, and…Andromeda. It’s unlikely Andromeda and HoloLens v2 — codenamed Sydney — will be powered by the powerful Snapdragon 1000, but the fact that Qualcomm is already testing the processor for real desktop systems shows Qualcomm is here to snatch the crown from Intel.
Tagged with
Conversation 71 comments
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286024"><em>In reply to HellcatM:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's possible that Windows will still be around for a long time, but keep in mind that "Windows 10 is the last version of Windows" is a policy that may be reversed at any time particularly if MS gets a new CEO. It's worth keeping in mind that version numbers and version names provide a useful function. Eventually it could happen that peripherals that say they are Windows 10 compatible will stop being so because of changes in Windows 10. It's not as if third-parties are going to print things like Windows 10 Creators Update compatible on their packaging.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286200"><em>In reply to FalseAgent:</em></a></blockquote><p>I'm not sure if all the transitions from 1507 to 1803 qualify as even one new version of Windows in the traditional sense, but these numbers (and their oddly named text equivalents) are pretty much abstract art to the average user. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286218"><em>In reply to FalseAgent:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's certainly a brand in the sense that the name was slapped on platforms that weren't really Windows such as WP 10, and XBOX, but re-branding happens all the time.</p>
-
Stooks
<blockquote><a href="#286016"><em>In reply to Waethorn:</em></a></blockquote><p>It is actually perfect timing. By the time this chip rolls out in new system there will be lots and lots of native Windows 10 on ARM software in the store :)</p><p><br></p><p>The elephant in the room is the software. With out native Windows 10 ARM based software all this update does is make the emulation suck less.</p>
-
skane2600
<p>I think the origin of the excitement about Windows on ARM came from the hope that the Windows Phone and Windows tablets would succeed in the marketplace. Now I think people are just coasting on the initial excitement and IMO it's hard to find a compelling reason for why WoA is important.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286555"><em>In reply to roastedwookie:</em></a></blockquote><p>The dirty little secret is that ARM-based PCs aren't really any cheaper than Intel based ones. The CPU cost isn't the dominant factor in the cost of the integrated product, particularly at the low end. Once you throw emulation into the mix, however, the overall cost is going to rise significantly if you want to support native-like performance. In the specific case of WoA, it's not the implementation that's the problem because the compromised performance is inherent to emulation schemes in general. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286267"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>"Windows its a value diluter when it comes to hardware as it is created to power and promote one entity software and services whose strategy is to minimize the value of hardware towards software, and further differentiate both."</p><p><br></p><p>In what way has Windows "diluted" hardware? What great ARM-based desktop platform is out there that makes Windows a hardware "diluter" by comparison? I think a more credible argument is that ARM dilutes the value of Windows by limiting which Windows programs that run and running them slower. </p><p><br></p><p>I think WoA is a bad idea, but it doesn't have anything to do with diluting hardware.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286363"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>"So why are you implicitly expecting that ARM runs x32 apps as well as its native CPU?"</p><p><br></p><p>1) I was not expecting that implicitly or explicitly. I expect all emulation schemes to be inferior no matter which platforms are involved, that's why it's best to avoid them.</p><p><br></p><p>2) I think MS started down the ARM road when they thought they were going to be a player in mobile and inertia is continuing that strategy. I don't know much about iPad Pro vs MacBook Pro or SP4 (are the latter 2 PCs considered state-of-the-art? I doubt it.) but I'm generally skeptical about these sorts of claims. </p><p><br></p><p>3) I don't think one can answer that question broadly. It depends on the configuration of the machine, the implementation of the particular browser used, the nature of the website visited, the operating system used and possibly the CPU used. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286408"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>1) I think a sufficiently ignorant user like you describe might not know the difference between Intel and ARM either. They might simply conclude that they got a lemon. In any case, I don't know what question #1 had to do with anything I said in the first place.</p><p><br></p><p>2) Sorry, but I consider anecdotal evidence with even more skepticism than I do benchmarks. I have no reason to deny your personal experience, but whether it applies broadly to other people or their activities is unknown.</p><p><br></p><p>3) Again, what you personally experience isn't all that convincing as proof of the general case, but you may be right. If you're talking about a $320 iPad it must be a mini with about a 7.9 inch display. Obviously it doesn't have the same performance as the iPad Pro you mentioned earlier. You can get a 11 inch Windows laptop with similar specs for $139. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286545"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>I didn't claim any relationship between the size of the display and performance. You started talking about price even though it also has no technical relationship to performance but I wouldn't accuse you of being "uniformed" on that basis because you didn't actually state that claim any more than I claimed a relationship between display size and performance.</p><p><br></p><p>Always dangerous to assume the level of knowledge that a stranger has. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#286561"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, I jumped to the conclusion that it was an iPad mini when I checked its price because I didn't expect the standard iPad to cost about the same. Over time I expect incremental performance improvements but don't expect those improvements to be much different from one CPU family to the next. </p><p><br></p><p>The only Mac I've ever owned is a used Mac Mini when it was given to me to support a development effort I was doing as a contractor years ago. I haven't owned a high-end Windows PC in over 15 years and I've never owned an iPhone or iPad. So I have no experience to share that would contradict your own. I'm just generally skeptical of broad claims because I believe that performance is a complex issue that depends on multiple factors and it's difficult to measure it comprehensively. </p><p><br></p><p>Although simplicity and flexibility are often traded-off, flexibility and performance aren't in natural opposition. That doesn't mean that such a trade-off can't be the case with respect to an iPad and a Windows PC, but it isn't inevitable in general.</p><p><br></p><p>Perhaps my standard of proof is unrealistically high. </p>