Exclusive: Google Pixel 9 processor won't be the ambitious chip we hoped for
Exclusive: Google Pixel 9 processor won't be the ambitious chip we hoped for
I've been running a galaxy S9 for years and have never run into a bottleneck with it.
Why do y'all keep needing more and more power packed into your phones? It doesn't make any sense to me.
"Why do you guys simply believe things should get better?"
That is how I read this. More power, more efficiency, better tech is not a bad thing to want.
Just because you want to hold on to a 5 year old phone doesn't mean someone else doesn't at least want to see efficiency in our pockets get better for the value we spend on them.
Imagine if someone said, I have dial up internet. Why are you guys constantly wanting faster Internet speeds.
It's okay to want things to get better. You should not have the mentality of, "it's just good enough."
How is this better value? I have a S9+, still full day battery and runs everything.
How is buying a new phone 'value'. What value does this bring exactly? You bring up dialup as a compassion. Well, modern connections don't tie up the phone line and are magnitudes faster (my Internet is 17,857x faster than dialup).
What tangible thing has been added to Mobile phones in the last 5 years? 10 years? What real value. Pretty sure my phone has more features than any 'modern' new phone.
The big reason is that you're choosing to spend several hundred dollars to put your still perfectly performant phone in a land fill so you can have a percentage or two more performance.
Your dial up comparison is not really a fair comparison, either. The S9 is not dialup in comparison to Samsung's new galaxy phones. You'd have to go down to like a BlackBerry or a Nokia flip phone to have that comparison make sense.
Let's compare the S9 to the S23.
The S23 has Wi-Fi 6E support, Bluetooth 5.3 support, twice as much base storage and RAM, 5G support, an in display ultrasonic fingerprint sensor, 3 high resolution cameras, 120hz refresh rate, twice as fast internal storage, a 33% larger battery, a much newer version of Android and to top it off a processor that's roughly 3X as powerful as the S9.
So to me it might not be fair to call the S9 dialup but I would say a comparison between broadband and fiber is pretty accurate. At the very least the other features are worth upgrading for if not the speed. Now I suppose the S9 is still a perfectly good phone to be used as just a phone but these things are really portable computers and the increase in processing power becomes tremendous in a short period of time.
Does your home router support WiFi 6e? your accessories BT 5.3? Your phone carrier stable 5g?
I can understand the battery and the screen improvement. But I also don't think it's as drastic as you claim.
This is an android enthusiast community. For a lot of people here the answers to that are going to be yes, yes and yes.
I think its more about the power efficiency. Samsung's exynos line as well as their few latest samsung foundry nodes are not known for being very power efficient, so I think people were holding for the Pixel 9 with a custom TSMC manufactured chip in hopes of it consuming less power and outputting less heat
I have a pixel 6 and a OnePlus 7 pro. Between the two of them, the OnePlus runs games much better. That is with a snapdragon 855.
I'm looking forward to upgrading to a better phone for gaming.
That said, the pixel phones right now just don't hold up against snapdragon 8 Gen 2, etc.
Because I wanted a foldy boi.
That said, I plan on hanging on to my Z Fold 3 for at least the next half decade.
But I need to run a web browser at Mach Chicken so I can justify tossing a perfectly good phone for a new $1000 phone.
because i want to play genshin impact on my phone.
Pokemon go chugged on that thing. I ran it alongside my oneplus 8 for a while, and I promise it wasn't running perfectly.
Nevermind that the oneplus 8 ran at 50% higher fps.
Wait until the new iPhone kills the mobile gaming market. It's probably going to be more powerful than the switch 2. Slap on a backbone controller or a dock and you don't need a game console at all.
The current gen android stuff is also pretty capable but nobody makes games that aren't gacha trash for android.
Pushing the leading edge of phone design opens new use cases, it's not always just about "doing the same shit, slightly faster"
I think the biggest issue is titles; what people expect of mobile games, perpetuating itself into a weak catalog of original titles, with a few good ports. Mobile games are largely designed to be heavily-monitized, Games as a Service, and/or gacha titles.. profitable design choices, but not because they make games better.
Having a more standard control scheme would help get more ports of console games, but I'd love to see more mobile games that use the existing interface/formfactor well. Pokemon Go circa 2018 was a good game that only works on mobile, and I'd love to see more of those.
You bring up an interesting point, and now I'm wondering: how would a gaming-focused phone sell in a post-Switch world? We all remember the Xperia Play, but maybe it was just too early. What if Apple released an "Arcade edition" of the next iPhone for $1000, which featured a slide out controller or some other slick integration of physical controls? How well would that sell, and what impact (if any) would it have on Switch/Steam Deck sales?
I mean, Asus and nubia have been making a gaming-specific phone for many generations now. Razer even gave it a try back in 2018, but I don’t think they released any follow up devices.
Lenovo also made a couple devices, but announced earlier this year that they’d be discontinuing their gaming phone business.
There seems to be a fan base and market for gaming-specific phones, but given Lenovo and Razer got out of the game and the fact that you haven’t seemed to have heard of any of these devices/product lines: my guess is that they are super niche.
I appreciate the links and examples, but none of those has physical gaming controls like I was suggesting. Obviously high end hardware is important in a device like this, but the physical controls were my key point.
I hear you, and fair enough, but I think the fact that none of these gaming-specific phones has physical controls like you described built in speaks to how impractical that ask is.
And I think it’s important to note: there’s weren’t just powerful phones (in fact, many of them seemed to get bested by other phones in more benchmarks than they won), they were specifically marketed and sold as gaming phones; that was the specific niche that Asus, Lenovo, Razer, and others all sought to fill. Despite that, and despite basically all those companies having a ton of general experience building gaming hardware of one sort or another, none of them thought it was a good idea to include physical input methods on-device. They pretty much all have accessories that turn it into something looking akin to a Switch or DS, but none had them baked into the actual phone.
And I honestly think that makes a lot of sense. Thumb sticks aren’t super pocket-able, and I feel like even if they could be made to fit into a pocket, sliding them in and out of bags and pants over and over would make them fail faster. And while A/B/X/Y buttons might be more reasonable on that pocket-ability metric, do you want to smush them (or thumb sticks, for that matter) against your face while you take a call?
While current controller-esque buttons and thumb sticks remain the primary input method for games, I really don’t see gaming phones including those input methods within their physical form factor. It might be a limitation of my imagination, but I just can’t envision how one would make that work (and it seems I am not alone in that).
Have you thought about why Switch is the best selling console in the current generation even though it's by far the weakest in performance?
The cheapest entry price with the most expensive ongoing cost?
Obviously it's because people are stupid.
Even Apple has to abide by the laws of physics. 3nm is fast, but a small, tightly packed, passively cooled device containing a large, heat generating element powered by a another large, heat generating element is unlikely to outperform a well ventilated, actively cooled device that is able to draw power from an outlet.
This is of couse ignoring the Apple reality distortion field, which in recent memory has succesfully perpetuated the idea that a tiny photo sensor can outperform a large one.
We've been hearing about Apple coming back to the gaming market for quite a long time now and absolutely nothing happens. The iPhone 15 isn't going to change anything in this regard, it's going to be a party trick with a handful of popular games ported to it and then nothing else.
Don't forget when the games disappear from the stores in the future.
I won't ever forget you Infinity Blade games!
The performance of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 GPU is already about 10-20% faster than the A16 chip, depending on the benchmark.
Even if Qualcomm only gives the Gen 3 a 10% performance increase, that is enough to beat or even surpass the A17 in gpu performance (rumors suggest something closer to a 30% increase). The Gen 2 already outcompetes the A16 in GPU power consumption and efficiency as well. This may change with the A17 since it’s on TSMC’s 3N node, however this node has been having issues which is why TSMC introduced the 3NE and 3NP so we will have to wait for power usage numbers from the A17 to see.
Overall I’m disappointed with the improvements between the A16 and A17. 10% on the CPU and 20% on the GPU (due to have 20% more cores) doesn’t seem like the type of upgrade I would expect from switching nodes. Hopefully next year they can do more with the improved N3 nodes. I’m also getting the feeling that Apple is trying to deploy more complex transformer models on their devices which is why we are seeing such a focus on the NPU.
I think you hit on the main point which is that nobody will pour money into developing for android. Apple also has the ability to make deals with companies with Capcom and Ubisoft to ensure games come to their platforms. I can’t see Google doing this since they already “tried” and failed to have a AAA mobile gaming platform with stadia. The only other company with enough motivation and money to bring big games to android is Samsung, but their mobile chips aren’t doing too well (despite their RDNA 2 architecture making it easier to port games).
Steam could step in with a proton layer if they wanted to. Android is technically linux already and the newest snapdragon stuff is comparable to the steam deck in raw power.
We're ripe for some multiplatform shenanigans.
Unfortunately, Valve would also have to build a CPU translation layer (Like Rosetta 2) since games run on x86 architectures and snapdragon uses an ARM architecture. The steam deck uses a Zen 2 CPU architecture which is already x86 so there would be little motivation on their part to do this. Currently proton uses wine to convert windows api calls into linux calls. The big thing Proton does is allowing games that use DirectX to run on Vulkan which is natively supported in Linux. So unless Valve makes the Steam Deck 2 with ARM or another company decides to make an x86 to ARM translation layer, then I don't see something like Proton coming to android any time soon.
The base already exists, wine is leveraging qemu for the cpu arch emulation and already has the windows translation layer.
I don't expect them to actually do it, but it would be on the same scale of a project as the proton project that's worked so well for the with the deck.
Maybe epic will do it to get a real deck competitor online, not that I trust those jackals to do it right.
Pushing the leading edge of phone design opens new use cases, it's not always just about "doing the same shit, slightly faster"
It's about creating new shit that runs at the same speed.
