This is a tough one as we saw only pre-selected scenarios. In OEM controlled setups, I find the results more credible if you guys get to run your own testing rather than using theirs. I'm sure it's not as easy as running already prepared CPU/GPU benchmarks in an OEM lab on a short notice.
All we need now are some terms in conflict (BAUD vs baud vs bps) and a battle over file transfer protocols (xmodem vs zmodem vs ymodem) and it'll be just like my childhood.
so one would think... but if you were into modems in the 80's around the transition from 1200bps to 2400bps modems lively debates would put a bump in FidoNet transmit times. Blame the modem manufactures that went from 1200 to 2400 but left baud next to the number. It only got worse with the 9600 modems.
Kudos to Qualcomm. Nice job guys. Nice to see such a no frills, raw numbers comparisons, even if the devices were selectively picked beforehand. This is what all marketing should be ... are you listening, everyone else?
They're showing shots with both. Most are W7; the last 4 are XP. Those 4 are all showing power meter levels; at a guess the power meter they're using is an older model; and lacks driver support for anything newer (a common curse of high end scientific instruments and industrial equipment). When the cost of the device being controlled is much higher than the computer controlling it; keeping a relic PC around is much more cost effective than replacing the much more expensive, but not broken, hardware it controls.
With respect to the power consumption comparison - how does a system level measurement do anything more than imply that one system is more efficient than the other? Were baseline idle measurements offered for each platform? Or are the numbers shown the delta versus idle already?
While there's no question that the 'competitor' system used more power on the LTE test given that the delta went from 22mA to 50mA how do we know that such is attributable to the modem and not other system components?
Soooo, in short words Qualcomm is in a great embarrassment . XMM7160 is pretty competitive with the best, not shipped yet, offerings. Obviously XMM7260 will be another big stone on the street. The worst thing is that actual Intel modem seems better than "actual" Qualcomm device. In these conditions, the two companies neck to neck, only price will do the difference. IMO Intel will push on prices to gain fast market share.
I'd say Qualcomm are battling a fundamental psychological issue here --- and doing so badly.
Qualcomm are a tech company, they are not Apple. They sell to engineers, and they sell on the basis of superior engineering. An event like this is supposed to maintain that image, that Qualcomm means superior engineering. The problem is: if you want to play that game, you HAVE to cater to the desires of your target audience. Which means you have to provide a constant stream of papers, public talks, white papers, etc describing and detailing the technology in your device. Engineers (and engineer wannabe's and engineer fans) don't just want to know that you can hit a throughput of x Mbps under white gaussian noise of y dB --- they want to know what algorithm you're using, the micro-architecture of your device, what its flaws and limitations are, etc etc etc. If you're not willing to give them that, all these press junkets are just a waste of time.
Or, to put it differently, what is Qualcomm's overall marketing strategy? If they are going for "Qualcomm inside" they need to come up with TV ads, a memorable four note sound phrase, stickers on Android phones, the whole Intel playbook. If they are going for wooing engineers, they need to do so by giving us ENGINEERING data, not canned demos.
Qualcomm has already been doing TV ads and stickers on phones... Though the TV spots were limited, they were clearly geared at promoting the Qualcomm/Snapdragon brand (think it even included some sorta little CGI dragon). The stickers I've seen might be more of a regulatory or licensing thing, I've only seen them on CDMA devices I think and it looked more like an FCC badge than "Intel inside". Nonetheless, it's pretty clear Qualcomm's trying to push the brand while they lock up the majority of design wins over the last two years.
The Price Component Breakdown for Mobile BaseBand Receiver and SoC were from est $24 - $35. That is in comparison to the CPU/GPU SoC $17 - $25, and Display Screen ~$40 with Glass.
So Basically it is the 3rd most expensive item on the BOM list. And it has risen from $10-$15. There is huge opportunity of cost saving for Mobile Phone makers if they can design and manufacture their own as long as they have the volume. And yet these ( well, two, Apple and Samsung ) still dont do it themselves.
I would really love to see a reason and explanation on that.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
18 Comments
Back to Article
FwFred - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
This is a tough one as we saw only pre-selected scenarios. In OEM controlled setups, I find the results more credible if you guys get to run your own testing rather than using theirs. I'm sure it's not as easy as running already prepared CPU/GPU benchmarks in an OEM lab on a short notice.mike8675309 - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
All we need now are some terms in conflict (BAUD vs baud vs bps) and a battle over file transfer protocols (xmodem vs zmodem vs ymodem) and it'll be just like my childhood.Interesting stuff none the less.
sheh - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Baud isn't the same as bps, even if in some setups they are equal.As for protocols, I think Kermit will be the one to prevail.
mike8675309 - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
so one would think... but if you were into modems in the 80's around the transition from 1200bps to 2400bps modems lively debates would put a bump in FidoNet transmit times. Blame the modem manufactures that went from 1200 to 2400 but left baud next to the number. It only got worse with the 9600 modems.skiboysteve - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
very cool. curious- what NI hardware were they using?PC Perv - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
"there’s a good chance we’ll be able to do so in the near future."You forgot to add "with Intel's help" at the end.
Can you deny? XD
hobagman - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Kudos to Qualcomm. Nice job guys. Nice to see such a no frills, raw numbers comparisons, even if the devices were selectively picked beforehand. This is what all marketing should be ... are you listening, everyone else?B3an - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
But disappointing to see they're still using Win XP. Theres no excuse for that.stacey94 - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
The second shot looks like Windows 7.DanNeely - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
They're showing shots with both. Most are W7; the last 4 are XP. Those 4 are all showing power meter levels; at a guess the power meter they're using is an older model; and lacks driver support for anything newer (a common curse of high end scientific instruments and industrial equipment). When the cost of the device being controlled is much higher than the computer controlling it; keeping a relic PC around is much more cost effective than replacing the much more expensive, but not broken, hardware it controls.Khato - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
With respect to the power consumption comparison - how does a system level measurement do anything more than imply that one system is more efficient than the other? Were baseline idle measurements offered for each platform? Or are the numbers shown the delta versus idle already?While there's no question that the 'competitor' system used more power on the LTE test given that the delta went from 22mA to 50mA how do we know that such is attributable to the modem and not other system components?
Gondalf - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Soooo, in short words Qualcomm is in a great embarrassment . XMM7160 is pretty competitive with the best, not shipped yet, offerings. Obviously XMM7260 will be another big stone on the street. The worst thing is that actual Intel modem seems better than "actual" Qualcomm device.In these conditions, the two companies neck to neck, only price will do the difference. IMO Intel will push on prices to gain fast market share.
name99 - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
I'd say Qualcomm are battling a fundamental psychological issue here --- and doing so badly.Qualcomm are a tech company, they are not Apple. They sell to engineers, and they sell on the basis of superior engineering. An event like this is supposed to maintain that image, that Qualcomm means superior engineering.
The problem is: if you want to play that game, you HAVE to cater to the desires of your target audience. Which means you have to provide a constant stream of papers, public talks, white papers, etc describing and detailing the technology in your device. Engineers (and engineer wannabe's and engineer fans) don't just want to know that you can hit a throughput of x Mbps under white gaussian noise of y dB --- they want to know what algorithm you're using, the micro-architecture of your device, what its flaws and limitations are, etc etc etc. If you're not willing to give them that, all these press junkets are just a waste of time.
Or, to put it differently, what is Qualcomm's overall marketing strategy? If they are going for "Qualcomm inside" they need to come up with TV ads, a memorable four note sound phrase, stickers on Android phones, the whole Intel playbook. If they are going for wooing engineers, they need to do so by giving us ENGINEERING data, not canned demos.
Impulses - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Qualcomm has already been doing TV ads and stickers on phones... Though the TV spots were limited, they were clearly geared at promoting the Qualcomm/Snapdragon brand (think it even included some sorta little CGI dragon). The stickers I've seen might be more of a regulatory or licensing thing, I've only seen them on CDMA devices I think and it looked more like an FCC badge than "Intel inside". Nonetheless, it's pretty clear Qualcomm's trying to push the brand while they lock up the majority of design wins over the last two years.iwod - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
The Price Component Breakdown for Mobile BaseBand Receiver and SoC were from est $24 - $35. That is in comparison to the CPU/GPU SoC $17 - $25, and Display Screen ~$40 with Glass.So Basically it is the 3rd most expensive item on the BOM list. And it has risen from $10-$15. There is huge opportunity of cost saving for Mobile Phone makers if they can design and manufacture their own as long as they have the volume. And yet these ( well, two, Apple and Samsung ) still dont do it themselves.
I would really love to see a reason and explanation on that.
lefty2 - Sunday, November 10, 2013 - link
I'm just wondering is there any reason a Qualcomm modem can't be used with a Silvermont SoC? Does anyone know?Shadowmaster625 - Monday, November 11, 2013 - link
One of the pieces of equipment in my lab has a 386 controlling it. 16MHz I think.Sesha_Giri - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
i am wondering where it will be usefull "TruSignal Uplink", with the size of phones coming, the RF chip placing should be a usage specific design.with small phones or low end phones would you like to keep this feature.