So, who's gonna get an S9?

[WelshBloke]

I think you mean touch response is OK but the frame rate is terrible. (or is it the other way around?) But touch response is also bad at multiple points. Whatever that is, it is an embarassing performance by Samsung PR. If it is a consolation for them, the page struggles on the iPad Pro, too. Hah.

Normally on a long web page I can just fling it and it'll scroll for ages, this site doesn't fling well!

 

[WelshBloke]

So USB C leads. How bloody expensive!

 

[lopri]

http://techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/samsung-galaxy-s9-teardown/

Spoiler: Exynos 9810 die shot (warning: large image)

Spoiler: Snapdragon 845 die shot (warning: large image)

The different approaches to these SOC designs are quite striking. Exynos 9810's big cores are humongous. In turn, the SD845's LITTLE cores are almost as big as its big cores. But the biggest of them all is the Exynos' GPU (Mali G72MP18).

Some observations/questions:

1. Exynos 9810 does not havê an on-die modem? That makes the SOC's relative size even more surprising.
2. Kryo cores's L3 is rather small, and is not adjacent to the big cores. It is also far away from the GPU. Is that normal?
3. According to Techinsights, the Exynos 9810's die size is 118.94 mm², and the SD845's is ~94 mm². In comparison, Apple's A11 is 87.66 mm² and SD835 is 72.3 mm². Both Samsung and Qualcomm shoot for the performance in this generation, but it does not seem like they have succeeded if judged solely by the Galaxy S9's performance. Of course we will have to wait for more SD845 devices to render a definitive verdict on it. In Exynos' case, the best that can be said is that Samsung laid a groundwork for their next SOCs. The worst, it is a fraudulent SOC. (heh)
4. I think we can safely say that Mali G72 GPU is a dud.

 

[Commodus]

http://techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/samsung-galaxy-s9-teardown/

Spoiler: Exynos 9810 die shot (warning: large image)

Spoiler: Snapdragon 845 die shot (warning: large image)

The different approaches to these SOC designs are quite striking. Exynos 9810's big cores are humongous. In turn, the SD845's LITTLE cores are almost as big as its big cores. But the biggest of them all is the Exynos' GPU (Mali G72MP18).

Some observations/questions:

1. Exynos 9810 does not havê an on-die modem? That makes the SOC's relative size even more surprising.
2. Kryo cores's L3 is rather small, and is not adjacent to the big cores. It is also far away from the GPU. Is that normal?
3. According to Techinsights, the Exynos 9810's die size is 118.94 mm², and the SD845's is ~94 mm². In comparison, Apple's A11 is 87.66 mm² and SD835 is 72.3 mm². Both Samsung and Qualcomm shoot for the performance in this generation, but it does not seem like they have succeeded if judged solely by the Galaxy S9's performance. Of course we will have to wait for more SD845 devices to render a definitive verdict on it. In Exynos' case, the best that can be said is that Samsung laid a groundwork for their next SOCs. The worst, it is a fraudulent SOC. (heh)
4. I think we can safely say that Mali G72 GPU is a dud.

What fascinates me is how Samsung can make the Exynos 9810 so huge, require an external modem chipset and still struggle compared to an A11 with fewer cores. Goes to show that a particularly well-done custom SoC still beats brute force using relatively standard architectures.

This also makes me think that Apple has some breathing room for the A12 chip. The company may not be moving on to a new manufacturing process, but it has headroom for more cores (or other optimizations) in a way its latest competition doesn't. I'm not expecting the A12 to be a huge leap, but it doesn't have to be to claim a solid edge over everyone else.

 

[dawheat]

What fascinates me is how Samsung can make the Exynos 9810 so huge, require an external modem chipset and still struggle compared to an A11 with fewer cores. Goes to show that a particularly well-done custom SoC still beats brute force using relatively standard architectures.

This also makes me think that Apple has some breathing room for the A12 chip. The company may not be moving on to a new manufacturing process, but it has headroom for more cores (or other optimizations) in a way its latest competition doesn't. I'm not expecting the A12 to be a huge leap, but it doesn't have to be to claim a solid edge over everyone else.

I'm curious what the actual size of the A11 Monsoon core is vs the big cores in the 9810 and whether having 2 vs 4 explains the size difference. For me considering how much both SOCs have to throttle back their big cores under sustained load, I wonder if the S845 is a better compromise.

 

[WelshBloke]

What fascinates me is how Samsung can make the Exynos 9810 so huge, require an external modem chipset and still struggle compared to an A11 with fewer cores. Goes to show that a particularly well-done custom SoC still beats brute force using relatively standard architectures.

This also makes me think that Apple has some breathing room for the A12 chip. The company may not be moving on to a new manufacturing process, but it has headroom for more cores (or other optimizations) in a way its latest competition doesn't. I'm not expecting the A12 to be a huge leap, but it doesn't have to be to claim a solid edge over everyone else.

Well Apple have the advantage of pumping lots of power into their chips hence batterygate...

 

[lopri]

No doubt the S845 is a more balanced SOC. The Exynos 9810, being a brand new architecture, will have a lot of refinements to go through. (and hopefully a lot of room for growing) Could a 2+4 or a 2+6 configuration be a potential alternative in the future? As it is there is no way those 4 big cores can run simultaneously within a reasonable power limit. If only one or two big cores can run at the target frequency and the extra two cores drag the whole cluster down and waste power, that sounds like defeating the purpose of big.LITTLE.

The real winner in my view is the S835. Amazingly efficient on both CPU and GPU front in such a tiny package which also packs the top of the line baseband modem.

 

[JujuFish]

What fascinates me is how Samsung can make the Exynos 9810 so huge, require an external modem chipset and still struggle compared to an A11 with fewer cores.

The A11 doesn't have a modem on the die either, FWIW.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Mali is just a huge waste. Enormous but still slow.

As for Exynos 9, Samsung should have swallowed their pride and gone for 2+4 like Apple.

 

[Commodus]

The A11 doesn't have a modem on the die either, FWIW.

Oh, I know, it's just notable that the die is still overall smaller than both the Qualcomm and Snapdragon alternatives. Certainly Apple has more room to grow than Samsung does given how much larger its die is without a modem inside.

 

[Oyeve]

It's not like Apple makes their processors .

 

[lopri]

The meaning of "growing" is ambiguous depending on the context. Chips are getting smaller due to advancing lithography and increasing cost, and in that context Apple has less room "to grow." After all, A11 grew out of A10 yet it got smaller, not larger. It is not unreasonable to predict that A12 will be smaller yet, but not by as much. If, on the other hand, the context is that there is a hard limit to how big a chip can be in smartphones/tablets, then Apple can afford to make their chips larger if performance is a priority. In that context Apple has more room to "grow." I think the truth is somewhere in the middle - there is a realistic size limit on how big an SOC can be, and at the same time they all want to make their chips smaller for various reasons (chief among them, cost).

BTW - Has anyone tried SABS? I am loving it so far.

 

[WelshBloke]

BTW - Has anyone tried SABS? I am loving it so far.

The whole KNOX thing is great. Secure folder is just like having a virtual machine on your phone! I have all my regular data leaky stuff (facebook, games, ...) on the main phone bit then run my banking stuff and a couple of email accounts in the secure folder connecting through a VPN.

 

[lopri]

Wow. That is some smart stuff.

 

[Oyeve]

My only issue with my S9+ is badge notifications not working. It's also affecting my S8+ since I upgraded that to oreo.

 

[dawheat]

Oh, I know, it's just notable that the die is still overall smaller than both the Qualcomm and Snapdragon alternatives. Certainly Apple has more room to grow than Samsung does given how much larger its die is without a modem inside.

A11 is a 2+4 while the others are a 4+4. But considering the heavy throttling of the A11/Exynos big cores under use, I don't think going to 4 big cores on the A12 make sense. Seems that the better compromise is a 2+4 like the A11 if you choose to go very wide on your big cores or a 4+4 if your big cores aren't very wide like the 845.

Personally I'd prefer Samsung optimize the Exynos big core and release something like a 2+4 (though they'll probably have to do a 4+4 for marketing reasons) since top notch bursty ST performance is more useful than huge sustained multicore performance since I don't game on my phone. I'd rather websites load faster 500 times a day like the A11.

 

[lopri]

On a positive note, the S9+'s graphics performance matches the expectation. Both in games and benchmarks it performs admirably. Interestingly the phone did get warm when the GPU was stressed, which was not the case when its CPU was stressed. It appears Samsung restricts the S845's CPU much more severely while letting its GPU to breath a bit. I suppose that makes sense for the use scenarios of majority of users.

Another positive note is that the battery life I get out of the S9+ is now great, after a week of use.

 

[justoh]

That review totally changed my mind. Europe=Exynos, so no thanks. I got the s7 2 years ago april, so I would have got the s9 next week were it not for that anandtech notification. Weight off my shoulders.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Wow, Samsung's Geekbench monster sure doesn't disappoint (in Geekbench). If you are actually using for real-life purposes though...

 

[vestibule1443]

Not sure if I should start a new thread for this or just ask this here (longtime reader first time poster). I got a factory unlocked S9+ direct from Samsung, and have been using it on USMobile, which uses Verizon towers. I installed the SIM without a hitch and was using it fine for a week. Well... yesterday my microSD card arrived in the mail, so I popped open the sim tray, put in the SD card, and popped it back in. When I booted up the phone again, it said it was downloading new carrier or SIM certification (or something like that, the message disappeared quickly). I saw that it was no longer connected to the Verizon network. I figured it was because it was going to install an update, so I thought great, and when it said it was ready to apply it didn't give me an option to not apply it. It rebooted the phone, but nothing changed... I still have no service.

After chatting with the USMobile rep they said this was a known issue Verizon is having with S9 phones and that it could take a month to fix... which is insane. This also doesn't sound right because the phone was working perfectly fine before I popped open the SIM tray to install the SD card. I've tried rebooting the phone a bunch of times to no avail. Every once in a while it'll say "Refreshing SIM data" on the bottom of the phone but nothing changes. I'm new to Android, does anyone have a clue how I might fix this?

 

[lsd]

Not sure if I should start a new thread for this or just ask this here (longtime reader first time poster). I got a factory unlocked S9+ direct from Samsung, and have been using it on USMobile, which uses Verizon towers. I installed the SIM without a hitch and was using it fine for a week. Well... yesterday my microSD card arrived in the mail, so I popped open the sim tray, put in the SD card, and popped it back in. When I booted up the phone again, it said it was downloading new carrier or SIM certification (or something like that, the message disappeared quickly). I saw that it was no longer connected to the Verizon network. I figured it was because it was going to install an update, so I thought great, and when it said it was ready to apply it didn't give me an option to not apply it. It rebooted the phone, but nothing changed... I still have no service.

After chatting with the USMobile rep they said this was a known issue Verizon is having with S9 phones and that it could take a month to fix... which is insane. This also doesn't sound right because the phone was working perfectly fine before I popped open the SIM tray to install the SD card. I've tried rebooting the phone a bunch of times to no avail. Every once in a while it'll say "Refreshing SIM data" on the bottom of the phone but nothing changes. I'm new to Android, does anyone have a clue how I might fix this?

You try it without the sd card installed?

 

[vestibule1443]

You try it without the sd card installed?

Yeah I just gave that a shot and it made no difference.

 

[lsd]

Yeah I just gave that a shot and it made no difference.

Next step is trying a different sim card and hope it is the sim card that's damaged.

 

[vestibule1443]

Next step is trying a different sim card and hope it is the sim card that's damaged.

Is that a real possibility if it was just working a moment before and if, when I reinserted it, some kind of "update" was installed to the phone?

 

[lsd]

Is that a real possibility if it was just working a moment before and if, when I reinserted it, some kind of "update" was installed to the phone?

Not sure but it seems odd that when you just reinstalled the sim card you encountered the problem. Make sure the apn settings are correct and try a different sim card.
I would try any sim card to verify the phone is working okay.