Read more.Quote:
It will lay-off 290 staff at its Austin R&D lab and an undisclosed number at its San Jose facility.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
It will lay-off 290 staff at its Austin R&D lab and an undisclosed number at its San Jose facility.
Looks like Samsung are regrouping to focus on the product design and outsource the CPU Cores and GPU to QualComm and AMD respectively in the handset/tablet space... probably wise with a host of up & coming Chinese manufacturers chasing them down.
Should also mean we see Qualcom-driven Samsung Flagship phones in the UK at last... previously we've had Exynos-driven versions of the top-end phones that offer differing levels (usually slightly weaker) performance than the U.S. version of the same phone.
Perhaps this means all future Samsung phones will have Exynos SoC's in them...
I thought most of the mobile industry wanted to be shot of Qualcomm?Quote:
Originally Posted by KultiVator
The majority of Android flagship phones have the high-end SnapDragon SoCs... and it's what tech-savvy consumers have come to expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Samsung's own Exynos chips differentiate them, but at the same time, generally don't perform quite as well as the equivalent SnapDragon - yet must cost billions in development costs for no real advantage over the competition.
This runs at odds of what Apple has managed to achieve by bringing a lot of the SoC design in-house over recent years.
Thank fornicating rats for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by KultiVator
The ones we've had in the UK haven't just had weaker SoC grunt. Everything is worse. The sound output, the camera ISP, even the display has been worse due to the poorer processing (even though the actual panel is the same). It's infuriating that we get a product with worse almost everything, including battery life and product longevity (poorer baseline performance means that it'll start to become sluggish with more demanding apps faster as relative performance is lower) and we're expected to believe it's the same product (it just isn't!) and value it the same.
I think from a business perspective it made sense to have their own SoC to avoid another QC screw up where their Snapdragon was just a disaster. This hasn't happened for ages though and really is unlikely to ever happen again. There was a chance they could do better but they didn't manage it so it makes sense to now give up on the project.
I think Apple having control of the entire ecosystem and available apps / SDKs / APIs really does make a massive difference to what they can achieve with optimisations and inhouse design.
But I am probably talking tosh.
I believe the use of Qualcomm in some regions was down to 4G modem types needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
This just means that Samsung SoCs will have an off the shelf ARM core in them rather than one designed by Samsung. Even with standard ARM IP there are still customizing options like cache sizes when placing it so Samsung can still go for a performance implementation of a standard core.
So another ARM architectural licencee throws the towel in on actually using their licence. I'm sure that's partly down to how good a job ARM are doing with their high end cores, though Apple and Nvidia both seem to be able to knock out faster designs. 300 engineers, probably costing the company $100K each on average between wages & equipment etc, that's about $30M a year saved. A tidy sum if they think the off the shelf hard cell will do. But somehow it seems a shame.
Nah - all makes good sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot