Qualcomm Officially Unveils Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 for PCs
- Paul Thurrott
- Sep 03, 2020
-
40
It was leaked last month by Samsung, but Qualcomm has made the Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 5G Compute Platform official, claiming a 50 percent performance boost over last year’s lackluster original version.
“Working remotely is the new reality, and more businesses are looking to quickly and securely connect their employee base, accelerating the need for always on, always connected PCs that are thin, light and truly mobile, equipped with blazing fast 5G cellular and Wi-Fi 6 connectivity, and coupled with multi-day battery-life to boost productivity,” Qualcomm senior director Miguel Nunes said in a prepared statement.
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
To say that the Snapdragon-powered Windows 10 on ARM platform has been a disappointment so far is the understatement of the decade, and one naturally wonders when Microsoft and Qualcomm will simply throw in the towel. But hope springs eternal. And maybe this terribly-named chipset, combined with some future x64 app compatibility, will make a difference.
Aside from the 50 percent performance improvement—a low bar—the 8cx Gen 2 uses the Qualcomm Aqstic echo cancellation and noise suppression (ECNS) technologies to provide “quality audio and camera experiences,” Qualcomm says. There’s also a Qualcomm Spectra ISP that enables internal cameras to support up to 4K HDR and 32 MPs of resolution. That’s about it for the new stuff: The 8cx Gen 2 is the second compute platform from Qualcomm to offer 5G connectivity using both Sub-6 GHz and 5G mmWave technologies.
The first (and probably only) PCs powered by this chipset will ship this holiday season.
Tagged with
Conversation 40 comments
-
remc86007
Log in to Reply<p>I'm ready for a Pro-X formfactor, fanless device with 3GHz quad-core x86 equivalent performance which can run full 64bit apps. Whoever delivers that first be it Intel, AMD or Qualcomm, gets my money.</p>
-
shameer_mulji
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567041">In reply to remc86007:</a></em></blockquote><p>If MS is serious about supporting Windows on ARM, it's going to need to do what Apple is doing and custom design its own SoC's. Relying solely on Qualcomm isn't going to cut it. Or maybe it could be really nice to Apple & license their upcoming Mac ARM SoC's (*sarcasm*).</p>
-
Scsekaran
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567096">In reply to shameer_mulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>If they are really serious about Windows on ARM, first they should port all Microsoft applications to ARM64. </p>
-
shameer_mulji
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567100">In reply to Scsekaran:</a></em></blockquote><p>That's a good point. That definitely helps as well.</p>
-
rbgaynor
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567096">In reply to shameer_mulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>Maybe, but it's not a quick solution. Apple has been developing and refining their SOC expertise for years over hundreds of millions (billions?) of shipped devices.</p>
-
shameer_mulji
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567102">In reply to rbgaynor:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not talking about a quick solution but an optimal one.</p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#567166"><em>In reply to shameer_mulji:</em></a><em> </em>If it's not a quick solution, it's not a Wall Street approved solution.</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
shameer_mulji
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567180">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>Very rarely does Wall Street know best.</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567181">In reply to shameer_mulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>It does not have to be an item that Wall Street has visibility on…. I would expect it would be mostly buried in R&D. (I think R&D makes up between 16 to 19 billion dollars a year).</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567096">In reply to shameer_mulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>Except that Apple bought a chip design company a decade or so ago, so even if Microsoft followed suit, it would probably still be at least half a decade away from a competitive solution.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyThey may be moving down this path.
First step, partner with chipmakers. Check.
Second step, co-design new chips with those partners. Check.
Third step, invest in or acquire chipmaker.
We’ll see.
-
jackwagon
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567096">In reply to shameer_mulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sarcasm aside, it would be kind of interesting to see how/whether Parallels ultimately deals with the transition. Imagine how amazingly bizarre it would be if Apple had a better Windows on ARM than the Surface Pro X could offer.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyI don’t see Windows 10 on ARM ever coming to ARM-based Macs. Why would it? The compatibility and performance are terrible.
-
pixymisa
Log in to Reply<p>Not even 50% faster than the previous generation, 50% faster than undefined "competing solutions": "<span style="color: rgb(103, 114, 131);">Performance and power tests were conducted by Qualcomm Technologies on Qualcomm Technologies reference platforms and commercial competitive devices.</span>"</p><p><br></p><p>As far as I can tell this is literally the same chip as last year, just with a new modem.</p>
-
jimchamplin
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>How about a version without the overpriced 5G crap so that they can deliver a machine that might have a hope of being competitively priced? ?</p>
-
Scsekaran
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567078">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>That is what you got in Surface Pro X</p>
-
jimchamplin
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567101">In reply to Scsekaran:</a></em></blockquote><p>… That's the past. You understand that time's arrow points ever forward, right? If Windows on ARM is going to survive – much less succeed – they can't act like systems priced like i7s but perform like Celerons are viable. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyYes. These should be priced like midmarket PCs, not premium PCs. Premium PCs shouldn’t have so many compromises.
-
winbookxl2
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#567465"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a><em> I agree, paying nearly 2K for a device that's basically a web browser with 5G and also comes with a Windows like experience and features should be around the higher $400-500 Chromebook prices and that's about it, if they want to attract market attention. </em></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
glenn8878
Log in to Reply<p>They'll be at Gen 5 or 6 by the time Windows is fully compatible with ARM.</p><p><br></p><p>Or just get Windows applications ported to ARM. I know that's a hard sell. Chicken or Egg.</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567090">In reply to glenn8878:</a></em></blockquote><p>Microsoft would probably have more success and maybe waste less money in the long run if they set up a fund to incentivize important applications on the platform to port over sooner. </p>
-
glenn8878
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567201">In reply to bkkcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p>Microsoft’s own developer tools should instantly do ARM ports to save everyone the trouble. </p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567310">In reply to glenn8878:</a></em></blockquote><p>Easier said than done. Especially for stuff written in older versions of tools. You can't even compile it with a modern version of VisualStudio, let alone use a cross-compiler.</p><p>Just look at the mess on the x86_64 side.</p><p>You still have software that needs .Net 3.5 or earlier and that can be a pain to install on current versions of Windows 10 on Intel, let lone getting the stuff running on ARM.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyAssume this is a chicken/egg thing.
Microsoft to Adobe: Please port Photoshop, CC apps to ARM.
Adobe: How many units did you sell?
Microsoft: \shuffles feet uncomfortably
Adobe: There you go.
-
glenn8878
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567466">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's even worse when you consider Microsoft didn't do Office conversions for Windows Store for many years after the store debut and it wasn't the full version. Microsoft lacks full buy-in for it's latest platforms.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyRight. When Microsoft isn’t even using the technologies it’s pushing on partners you have to wonder.
-
ronh
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567466">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>Microsoft should work with companies like Affinity to get their apps up on Arm. Adobe is too slow and just wants subscriptions. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyAgreed.
-
jhambi
Log in to Reply<p>I would buy an ultra thin Chromebook with one of these. Not sure why the focus is on Windows.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567192">In reply to Jhambi:</a></em></blockquote><p>Because Microsoft controls the desktop. ChomeOS is well under 1% marketshare. If ARM can succeed on the desktop, it needs to be Windows, then Linux, then mac, then a distant 4th ChromeOS.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyIt might be the 1.5 billion users.
-
proftheory
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Stop trying to make a RISC chip an x86 (CISC) and port Windows to RISC/ARM. It has already been done for Linux (Android).</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567203">In reply to proftheory:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem is the software, not the OS itself… A lot of it is legacy and not maintained, so no chance of getting it running on ARM and until ARM makes up a significant amount of hardware, nobody is going to convert their software to run on ARM and nobody will buy ARM until the software is there.</p><p>Open source is easier, because you have the source, so you can modify it and recompile it for ARM yourself.</p>
-
datameister
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567203">In reply to proftheory:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>It has already been done for Windows too. But they want that x86 emulator in there so people can keep running the current base of Windows software. Otherwise what is the point of Windows if only a few of the thirty apps I want to use will work.</p>
-
jimchamplin
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>More thoughts about Windows on ARM…</p><p><br></p><p>WOA also needs variety in hardware. If one were to make an investment into the platform, they'd probably want to know that they can expand beyond weak thermally-constrained portables.</p><p><br></p><p>Where are the ARM-based desktops with high TDPs that equate to high performance? Oh… nowhere to be seen. ARM CPUs are capable of so much more than damn Qualcomm will let them be. ARM could have pushed Intel out some years ago if one uninspired company didn't have a de facto monopoly on ARM chipsets. The truth is that Qualcomm is terrible for the ecosystem and Microsoft needs badly to open WOA officially to other chipset manufacturers.</p><p><br></p><p>Choosing Qualcomm is like saying "We're fine with putting a 70HP four-banger in a half-ton pickup truck." Qualcomm has consistently demonstrated that if there's a market they're not interested in – and they're only interested in flagship Android phones – then they'll just recycle silicon year over year exactly as they did to Android wearables but charge premium prices for it. They <em>can</em> deliver a quality CPU, but they often choose <em>not to</em> because lol cheap. They want to sell 5G modems. That's all. If they can sell a 5G modem with a six-year-old core for brand-new prices, they will. </p><p><br></p><p>Additionally, there needs to be official support for SBCs. You better believe I'd buy a Windows 10 license to run on an ODROID or Raspberry Pi 4 with 8+ GB of RAM.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567237">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree, but it isn't as simple as that. The ARM instruction set is the same, but how the actual chip is implemented is different for each manufacturer. That is part of the reasons why Android is such a mess.</p><p>There are plenty of mobile (smartphone and tablet) SoCs and there are high-end server SoCs (the fastest supercomputer at the moment is ARM based), but there is hardly anything in the laptop and desktop market.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyI suspect the industry is waiting to see if WOA even survives. But the issues it has now—performance, compatibility—also preclude putting it on desktops for now.
-
winbookxl2
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#567464">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>I can envision the 8cx Gen 2 being implemented out in the felid as a replacement of remote thin clients and embedded systems and other areas of computing? </p>
-
SYNERDATA
Log in to Reply<p>This is good news where Qualcomm needs to match Apple's Bionic ARM performance moving forward.</p><p>With 50% performance increase now, native x86 can be left behind. Win64 compatibility is coming, too.</p><p><br></p><p>Looking forward to the SPX2 with SQ1 Gen 2.</p>
-
winbookxl2
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I am excited for this jump and switch. I been using the Lenovo Yoga C630 WOS as my computer to attend school remotely and as my main Zoom & Teams device as it has 4GLTE backhaul. So far it had been working quite well. It's not the fastest comparted to my i7 PC Desktop and i7 MacBook Pro but after a year of software upgrades and newer programs being developed for the ARM64 platform its starting to age better than expected. </p><p><br></p><p>I have high hopes for the 8cx Gen 2 as it may be able to replace many of the slower Chromebooks in the edu. field. Since developing and supporting these Windows on ARM machines will be much easier. </p>