![]() ![]() As for the ‘titanium’ cores, the tipster states that these could be clocked higher and possess a higher cache than the ‘gold’ ones, but he does not have concrete information right now. If you noticed the CPU cluster, there are three gold cores added, which is a step up. The CPU configuration shows that the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 is using fewer power-efficiency cores this time, meaning that Qualcomm could be focused more on delivering higher multi-core performance. Three Hunter ‘gold’ cores (Cortex-A7xx).Two Hunter ‘titanium’ cores (Cortex-A7xx).One Hunter ‘gold+’ core (likely the Cortex-X4).In any case, the tipster has provided the CPU cluster breakdown below: Earlier reports mentioned that this core could run at 3.70GHz, but it was not confirmed if the frequency would be reserved for the Galaxy S24 series expected to launch next year. It is the first time that Qualcomm will use ‘titanium’ cores, with the single ‘gold+’ core signifying that it will likely be the Cortex-X4. According to Kuba Wojciechowski, who started a long Twitter thread, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 will feature the unique designation number SM8650, along with the codename ‘Lanai’ or ‘Pineapple.’ What is most interesting about the latest leak is the CPU configuration, and according to the tipster, the flagship chipset will have a ‘1 + 2 + 3 + 3’ cluster, using a combination of ‘gold+’ and ‘titatium’ cores. Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 to also take advantage of unannounced ARM cores codenamed ‘Hayes’ and ‘Hunter’įirst, let us start with the model number and codename. There is a boatload to discuss here, so let us get right into it. Also, for the first time, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 is said to use ‘titanium’ cores. ![]() However, an update from a person who has leaked reliable information in the past mentions a completely revamped configuration. ![]() An earlier specifications leak of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 revealed that Qualcomm’s upcoming flagship SoC for 2023 would feature a ‘1 + 5 + 2’ CPU cluster, along with being mass-produced on TSMC’s 4nm process. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |