Difference between Snapdragon and OMAP 3630?

[Chillson]

I'm not sure what the difference is between the two chips. They can both achieve the same speeds right? Just two difference manufacturers? With the Droid X coming out, or with any future phone in general, why is one chip better than the other?

 

[Mojo]

The Qualcomm Snapdragon platform continues to generate robust industry attention to accompany its steadily expanding customer base. At the recent COMPUTEX 2010 show, Qualcomm unveiled the sampling of the third generation of its Snapdragon platform [FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]–[/FONT] namely its first dual-CPU Snapdragon chipsets consisting of the MSM8260, MSM8660 and QSD8672 products that feature enhanced dual cores that can run at up to 1.2GHz and 1.5GHz respectively, and are targeted at the high-end smartphone market area (the third generation Snapdragon platform is expected to support commercial products by the end of 2010). The new third-generation Snapdragon products complement its first-generation QSD8x50 1GHz core product and the second-generation MSM8x55 and QSD8x50A products with 1GHz enhanced core, including multimedia optimizations and 1.3GHz enhanced core respectively.

The Snapdragon platform can be viewed as competing within the mobile application processor market segment (also referred to as the mobile multimedia processor market segment). Today the application processor segment includes IC platforms that typically integrate the application processor core along with additional functions such as baseband modem and wireless connectivity functions onto a single system-on-a-chip (SoC); this includes the Qualcomm Snapdragon. The application processor market also consists of IC platforms that exclude integration of baseband modems (e.g., TI’s OMAP 4). The application processor platform segment addresses a wide range of mobile devices including smartphones, mobile Internet devices (MIDs), netbooks and portable media devices. By its nature, the mobile application processor market segment attracts a wide swath of competition from the top-tier mobile silicon players, including Samsung, Apple, Intel and TI. Due to Qualcomm’s historically solid competitive foundation, based heavily on its CDMA chipset royalties, and the burgeoning traction of the Snapdragon platform (in over 140 device designs), it presents a mounting competitive challenge and thus generates the key issue of how the competition can position against the overall Snapdragon platform.
Perspective Current Perspective
The Snapdragon platform has been commercially available since Q4 2008 through the QSD8650 and QSD8250 first generation product offerings. From its inception, Qualcomm positioned the Snapdragon platform as an innovative breakthrough offering since it uses the in-house custom developed Scorpion CPU as the core application processor based on the ARMv7-based Cortex-A8 core. This approach has enabled Qualcomm to engineer improvements over standard off-the-shelf ARMv7-based Cortex-A8 processors in areas such as power consumption (e.g., the first Scorpion processor required 150 mW less power consumption at 600 MHz than the non-customized ARM equivalent and so on) as well as optimizing the processor design for the low-power (LP) process. As a result, the Snapdragon platform has proven a stalwart in the smartphone application processor market, as evidenced by the Snapdragon platform’s incorporation in over 140 device designs that include mobile devices that range from HTC’s Droid Incredible and Nexus One smartphones to Huawei’s S7 tablet, to name a few.

For the first generation Snapdragon QSD82x0 products and the second generation Snapdragon MSM8x55 and QSD8x50A products, Qualcomm shares platform and product metrics in areas such as core processor clock speed/performance, flexible wireless connectivity functions, HD video/3D/display/camera support and O/S versatility. This gives rivals a wide range of product areas to seek selective differentiation against the Qualcomm Snapdragon platform, although Qualcomm is hardly unique in that regard.

The topic of core processor clock speed and performance, for example, represents a straightforward and intuitive product area for rivals to assert competitive differentiation. The Snapdragon platform’s first-generation QSD8x50 supports a 1GHz core processor while the second-generation MSM8x55 and QSD8x50A products support a 1GHz enhanced core, including multimedia optimizations and a 1.3GHz enhanced core respectively. In contrast, Intel asserts that its x86 processor-based Moorestown platform via the Atom Z6xx processor series can support up to 1.5GHz clock speed for smartphone devices and up to 1.9 GHz clock speed for tablet devices. Such metrics will still match the third generation Snapdragon QSD8672 product that is designed to run dual cores that operate at 1.5GHz (this product should appear in mobile devices at retail by the end of 2010). This complements Intel’s overall efforts to position its Moorestown platform as prime time ready for smartphone technology due to the improvements realized in areas such as power consumption advances in battery life spans (based on 1500 mAh batteries) in support of 1080p/720p video (e..g, up to four hours for 1080p video) and browsing applications as well as multi-fold improvements gained in Java script, Web page, graphics and video performance. This includes up to fourfold Java script performance improvement and at least a doubling of Web page download performance and graphic performance in relation to the Qualcomm Snapdragon platform as well as wielding the industry’s only across-the-board support of 1080 HP/MP/BP 30 fps and 720 HP/MP/BP 30 fps video capabilities. Intel’s overall R&D investment and marketing blitz on behalf of the Moorestown platform is certainly targeted at Snapdragon, as well as advancing Intel’s longstanding ambition to promote the x86 processor architecture as a viable alternative to the ARM processor architecture that dominates the mobile device silicon market today. Intel hopes to play a more prominent role within the overall mobile device silicon market beyond netbook silicon. There is a bit of irony here as Intel is looking to use the Intel Moorestown platform to attack the ARM-centric Snapdragon platform in Qualcomm’s backyard of smartphone and tablet silicon, while Qualcomm is developing the Snapdragon platform to help more directly challenge Intel’s prominence within the netbook silicon segment.

Apple, Samsung and TI are Qualcomm rivals that also use the customization of the ARMv7-based Cortex-A8 processor to achieve select advancements over the standard ARM offering. Samsung and Apple currently have a strange bedfellow arrangement that can influence how they position their respective platforms against the Snapdragon platform. Samsung collaborated with Intrinsity in developing and introducing its 45nm-based Hummingbird platform during 2009. In April 2010, it was revealed that Apple acquired Intrinsity in stealth mode to lock up the FastCore intellectual property (IP) that was instrumental in realizing the iPad A4 processor’s enhancements to standard issue ARM Cortex-8 core processor technology (e.g., achieving 1 Ghz clock speed on a 45nm process). Through the acquisition, Apple can promote that its A4 processor development efforts are dedicated exclusively to the support of Apple products such as the iPad and iPhone, and the company can avoid the dissipation of processor engineering resources that its rivals, such as Qualcomm, are obliged to perform through the open-ended support of multiple OEM products. Samsung should look to further elucidate its plans to license the Hummingbird technology to other mobile device vendors and what if any impact this has on its Apple relationship. The Apple acquisition of Intrinsity does not change the fact that Apple’s A4 technology remains based on Samsung’s 45nm SoC technology and Samsung continues to have access and wield the Hummingbird IP gained from its joint collaboration with Intrinsity prior to the Apple acquisition of Intrinsity.

Samsung continues to register significant product development and marketing advances with its Hummingbird SC5PC110 processor. The Hummingbird S5PC110 runs the Samsung Galaxy S smartphone, which Samsung asserts will launch in an astonishing 110 countries. One area the Samsung can assert clear product differentiation against Qualcomm is in the area of 3D graphics. The S5PC110 processor can scale up to support 90 million triangles per second. In contrast, the Qualcomm QSD8650 delivers only 22 million triangles per second while the pending QSD8672 will do up to 80 million triangles per second. Additionally, in the related area of 2D graphics rendering, Samsung’s S5PC110 product can support up to one billion pixels per second while Qualcomm’s QSD8650 supports only 133 million pixels per second and the upcoming QSD8672 product still comes up short against Samsung with an improved 500 million pixels per second.

TI’s OMAP 4 platform using the OMAP4440 processor is slated to support mobile device products that will hit retail in late 2010/early 2011. The OMAP processor series is already found in well-known mobile handset products such as the Nokia N-series, the Motorola DROID, and the Palm Pre. However, OMAP 4 dual core clock speeds are limited to just 1 GHz, and that’s for a product that is not yet in generally available mobile products. In this regard, OMAP 4 only ties the Qualcomm Snapdragon’s first generation 1 GHz product and trails both the second and third generation 1.2Ghz-1.5Ghz products. However, TI has already staked out a competitive position against Qualcomm in this area showing how apples-to-apples comparisons can prove dicey at times in the mobile silicon space. TI asserts that the OMAP 4 can deliver improved resolution display and still image metrics in relation to the Snapdragon platform, despite the core processor clock speed differentials. For example, the OMAP 4 can deliver 20-megapixel camera support while the QSD8x50 product can only handle 12-megapixel cameras. Moreover, TI advocates the OMAP 4 platform will prove more flexible in hardware support of future video codecs in relation to the Snapdragon platform. TI will also invoke that its OMAP4440 processor will use the ARM Cortex-9 architecture, which can yield performance improvements over ARM Cortex-A8 products (up to 30 percent according to ARM) and more flexible dual core power management arrangements.

Overall the most serious long-term competitive threats to the Qualcomm Snapdragon platform within the smartphone and tablet application processor market will prove to be the major mobile silicon players such as Samsung, Apple and TI, as well as Intel, who already possess competitive application processor platforms targeted specifically at smartphone, MID and tablet products. Mobile silicon rivals such as Marvell, Freescale, NVIDIA and ST-Ericsson all sport viable mobile application processor platforms but need to prove they can move the market needle more within the mobile application processor market segment to mount a serious challenge to Qualcomm in the evolving smartphone/tablet silicon market segment. Marvell and Freescale have achieved market distinction within the ereader niche, for example, but are not able to match the Snapdragon’s presence in over 140 device design wins. Samsung, Apple, Intel and TI all possess the product differentiators in areas such as core processor clock speed/performance, power consumption metrics, and HD video/3D/display/camera video performance and the global channels to challenge the Snapdragon’s early market prominence in this area into the foreseeable future.
Recommended Actions Vendor Actions
[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]•[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Mobile application processor vendors that target emerging 4G/LTE silicon devices should consider getting out ahead of the market in explaining how their platforms optimally complement the region-sensitive E-UTRA LTE bands (TDD/FDD modes). In general, mobile application processor vendors should posit the 4G/LTE market represents a new level playing field in the market as Qualcomm’s dominance in the CDMA/3G silicon market will not directly translate into the same type of dominance within the 4G/LTE space.

[/FONT]•[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Mobile application processor vendors should note that they generally rely on third-party partners to supply fundamental mobile silicon components such as baseband modems and RF transceivers to complement their application processor platforms while Qualcomm uses integrated in-house baseband modem and RF transceiver components as part of the Snapdragon offering. This provides some latitude in asserting that they can select best-of-breed components in these areas and have more supply chain flexibility in relation to Qualcomm’s single vendor approach.

[/FONT]•[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Intel should continue to pointing out that the smartphone/tablet market is still in its developing stages, which gives Intel ample opportunity to capitalize on new market opportunities in this fast growing segment. This includes pointing out that the Atom Z6xx series is already in the advanced demo stage in smartphones with 3.8”+ displays and ~15mm thin tablets and the x86 platform supports rising mobile O/Ss such as Android and MeeGo. [/FONT][/FONT]
User Actions
[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]•[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Smartphone and tablet OEMs need to test and contrast the Intel Atom Processor Z6xx series (prior codename Lincroft SoC) against competing ARM-based mobile device SoCs, such as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon platform, due to factors such as its compact package (i.e., 13.8x13.8x1.1mm with 0.5mm pitch), support of 19 power islands with on-die clock and power gating, new ultra low-power states (i.e., SOi1, SOi3), and the leveraging of Intel’s Hi-K 45nm LP SoC process.

[/FONT]•[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Smartphone and tablet OEMs should investigate the new OS power management (OSPM) capability that accompanies the overall Moorestown platform. This includes support of integrated PMUs, software-based OS power management options, and fine-grain power management functions that create power islands for sub-systems (i.e., power is only allocated to the application running and not dispersed to idle applications, etc.) and factor in such capabilities in seeking apples-to-apples validation of Intel’s power conservation claims on behalf of the Atom Moorestown platform in relation to the Snapdragon platform.

[/FONT]•[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Smartphone and tablet OEMs need to keep factors such as memory caching efficiency and variance of performance from differing mobile O/S’s in validating mobile application processor product marketing claims in area such as 1080p video and 3G graphic performance metrics.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Mojo]

That should give you all you ever wanted to know about SnapDragon lol

 

[Darkseider]

OOH OOOH OOH! PICK ME! PICK ME!

Ok. Now that I have that out of the way here's the skinny.

The Snapdragon manufactured by Qualcomm uses an in house developed processor core codenamed "Scorpion" which is based on the Cortex A8. It also uses an embedded Adreno 200 GPU on the SoC. The part is clocked from the factory at 1 Ghz and maunfactured using a 65nm process. All in all is a good general purpose SoC.

The T.I. OMAP 3630 is the an SoC produced by Texas Instruments. It is using a Cortex A-8 processor core licensed from ARM. The GPU in the unit is a PowerVR SGX 530 which is more capable that the one found in the Snapdragon. This SoC is also clocked at 1 Ghz and produced using a 45nm process. This will in turn reduce heat and power consumption. The OMAP series of processors also perform better clock for clock when compared to the Snapdragon.

For instance. An OMAP 3430 (the SoC in the Moto Droid) at 800 Mhz performs on par with a 1 Ghz Snapdragon. The OMAP has also been proven to be overclockable beyond our wildest dreams where as the Snapdragon has very limited overclock-ability as can be seen by the Nexus One, Desire and EVO 4G. All in all both are very good SoCs for Android handsets but right now the T.I. OMAP is the overall performance king in this arena until Qualcomm introduces something new.

 

[armeddroid]

Very good info here.
Clarified alot for me.
Thanks guys.

 

[Chillson]

Wow, thanks for all the info!

 

[Darkseider]

Ooh and by the way I have said it on these forums before and I will say it again. ARM is the future of general purpose computing and Power processors as well as those based on the Cell (which are Power based) are the future of supercomputing. x86 will hopefully, one can pray, come to it's end.

 

[Kandiru]

Awesome Mojo, now reading your sig i remembered the one about the vacuum cleaner and the Harley D....the location of the dirtbag

 

[lazarman]

OMAP4 Gig

OOH OOOH OOH! PICK ME! PICK ME!

Ok. Now that I have that out of the way here's the skinny.

The Snapdragon manufactured by Qualcomm uses an in house developed processor core codenamed "Scorpion" which is based on the Cortex A8. It also uses an embedded Adreno 200 GPU on the SoC. The part is clocked from the factory at 1 Ghz and maunfactured using a 65nm process. All in all is a good general purpose SoC.

The T.I. OMAP 3630 is the an SoC produced by Texas Instruments. It is using a Cortex A-8 processor core licensed from ARM. The GPU in the unit is a PowerVR SGX 530 which is more capable that the one found in the Snapdragon. This SoC is also clocked at 1 Ghz and produced using a 45nm process. This will in turn reduce heat and power consumption. The OMAP series of processors also perform better clock for clock when compared to the Snapdragon.

For instance. An OMAP 3430 (the SoC in the Moto Droid) at 800 Mhz performs on par with a 1 Ghz Snapdragon. The OMAP has also been proven to be overclockable beyond our wildest dreams where as the Snapdragon has very limited overclock-ability as can be seen by the Nexus One, Desire and EVO 4G. All in all both are very good SoCs for Android handsets but right now the T.I. OMAP is the overall performance king in this arena until Qualcomm introduces something new.

So Darkseider

I guess I should jump at the offer I got to be a OMAP4 apps engineer

 

[lazarman]

Betting on ARM

Ooh and by the way I have said it on these forums before and I will say it again. ARM is the future of general purpose computing and Power processors as well as those based on the Cell (which are Power based) are the future of supercomputing. x86 will hopefully, one can pray, come to it's end.

with 25 years of real time embedded software experience and having designed for FreeScale QUAD Dual Core boards

I am betting working on ARM bleeding edge processors will take me all the way to the day I retire,keep my skillset competitive and fend off all the cheap incompetent foreign H1B labor

 

[ralphcorrales]

Ooh and by the way I have said it on these forums before and I will say it again. ARM is the future of general purpose computing and Power processors as well as those based on the Cell (which are Power based) are the future of supercomputing. x86 will hopefully, one can pray, come to it's end. do my homework

No doubts! Intel gracelessly flopped in its repeated attempts to cram x86 and ARM development leaves them no chance.