After Samsung has teased some Exynos news for CES 2014 on its Exynos Twitter account (image above,) a new report from China suggests the company may have two new chip versions in the works, which will be unveiled at the Las Vegas trade show in a few days.

These are the Exynos 6 (Exynos 6 Octa) that’s based on ARM chip architecture and the Exynos S, that’s reportedly based on Samsung’s own technology.

According to MyDrivers, both chips will pack eight cores and both will be 64-bit processors. The Exynos 6 is expected to be based on ARM Cortex-A50 architecture – it’s said to have a quad-core Cortex-A57 cluster and a quad-core Cortex-A53 cluster – and to be 1.53x faster than Qualcomm’s current Snapdragon 800 chip that’s used in various Android devices, including Samsung models.

Many details about the Exynos S aren’t known at the time, but the publication says that the Exynos S will also be faster than the Snapdragon 800, but slower than the Exynos 6 chips – Samsung’s custom chips are said to offer a performance that’s 1.43x faster than Qualcomm’s top 2013 mobile chip.

While this is just an unconfirmed rumor at this point – so don’t get too excited about the prospect of having faster chips in your 2014 mobile devices just yet – GforGames reminds us of a Samsung presentation that took place in early November during Analyst Day, which showed the following slide.


In the presentation, Samsung reportedly talks about two 64-bit chips for the future, one based on ARM’s architecture, and one based on Samsung’s. So far, in addition to Apple, only Qualcomm has announced a 64-bit chip for mobile devices – however, Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 410 processor will equip entry-level to mid-range 2014 mobile devices.

Luckily, CES 2014 kicks off in a few days, at which point we’ll be able to tell you more details about Samsung’s Exynos-related announcements.

  • Bone

    Samsung is strong on CPU performance, their Exynos 5 Octa revision found in the non-LTE new Notes match or almost match the SD800, and if the all-8core patch arrives, it will pass the Qualcomm chip.

    But more than sheer performance Samsung should keep heat and power drain at bay, something Snapdragons do better, plus they need to come up with a GPU that doesn’t just follow the rest but sneaks ahead.

    • Chris Martinelli

      Bah. Samsung is big on talk. I will beleive it when its released and independently reviewed by people that arent Samsung. If it has performamce and power at or near the snapdragon 805 I will be amazed.

    • Guru Tim

      Yes you are right the new chip will surpass the SD800. Not much of a feat really if their eight core CPU just about beats a YEAR OLD quad core haha.
      I laugh at how people think that is some sort of achievement just because it is “Saumsung”. Boy oh boy, I can’t wait for Qualcomm to produce an eight core CPU, and shows you guys how it’s done.

      • EducateYourself

        The Exynos 5 Octa is the Note is using ARM Cortex-A15 (architecture from 2012), just with more cores, so no, the S800 is newer, hate more, idiot.

        • Guru Tim

          EducateYourself, you really should educate yourself haha. It’s not about which is newer architecture. It’s about which had longer development times. The Exynos 5 Octa in the new Note 3 has been developed more, and for longer than the SD800. Also remember SAMSUNG make the CPU and the phone, so a hell of a lot of optimisation took place during development. I guarantee you dropping the Exynos 5 Octa into another phone would not get anywhere near the same results. These are things the fans, like yourself, don’t even think about and it’s hilarious. Because then you try to argue, but your point is so narrow-minded/not really thought out, that it’s incredibly easy to oppose.

          • Levi

            As a proud owner of Samsung products, I do agree with you that they are good at getting some solid performance out of their hardware. Unfortunatley, as I’m sure you’ve heard, Samsung did get in trouble for their devices detecting when they were being benchmarked and performing better than normally during benchmarks. I don’t understand why this was such a big deal though since this is similar to overclocking. All that aside, the new devices are sure to please regardless of whether or not they use a new Snapdragon or Exynos.

  • chkenwing

    What’s the point when their software is still s… as f…. ?

    • MasterMuffin

      Others can use them

      • Leno Sam

        My Gusta…

    • Shark Bait

      Better chromebooks!

      • Mozaik

        intel haswell my friend.

    • kfc

      touchwiz sucks and knox stops people from rooting, so seriously samsung software sucks lol

      • Anirudh

        Actually that is good , keeping in mind the aim of knox.
        They have now the Google edition versions to do all that tweaking stuff.

  • Giggity

    For the average user the speed of the processor doesn’t translate into a big enough difference to make a difference. What matters more to them is that their device lasts the whole day and is not the weight of brick in their pocket.

    Right now the biggest struggle is to find a way of getting developers to develop for the 64 bit market and for Google to find a way of having 32 bit and 64 bit versions of apps on the market and for the App store to determine, through the device that they are using, to allow it to download the 64 bit version. Then 64 bit processors become viable. Until then they lose a lot of their competitive edge.

    This is the same issue that haunted Windows PC market. In fact it still does. There is no incentive to write software for purely 64 bit systems and even now, while all new systems purchased tend to be 64 bit the software that is run on them is 32 bit software and even though there is a performance increase because of a faster processor there is also a reduction in performance purely because the software being run by the users tends to ‘retard’ or ‘slow down’ the processor performance.

    • Azeem

      Android runs on a runtime. Once they update it, all apps are updated to perform in 64-bit mode. Developers don’t need to make apps compatible with 64-bit.

      “Android finds itself in a different situation. Since Android apps utilize the Dalvik VM, in theory, Dalvik could be “upgraded” to 64-bit, and apps would naturally run in 64-bit because they’re compiled Just In Time — that compilation can be to 32-bit, 64-bit, or some other future architecture not yet dreamed of.”

      • earduino

        That’s the beauty of VM-compiled over native-compiled app.
        You only need to generate portable bytecode/ IL on deployed apk, then it will be compiled to 32/64 bit on run time (or at install time, if you use ART).

        But app that use NDK won’t have that luxury. Games that use NDK & native lib (.so) will most likely need recompile to take full advantage of 64-bit android.

    • Shark Bait

      I don’t think their is any such issue with ARM. ARM 64 bit is fully compatible with ARM 32 so I believe apps should run the same from a hardware stand point.
      Their shouldn’t be the same problems PC’s have

  • Guest

    Don’t really understand having an “octa core” SoC with 4 A53 cores — those are the more power efficient cores, thus they are used when the device isn’t doing much. . . do you really need four of them? Seems to make more sense to have a single A53 core with the rest of the cores A57, or just go all A53 — eight A53 cores would do pretty darn good with battery life and performance versus four A57 cores.

    Nonetheless, their chips will only be in certain countries and probably supported less than the snapdragon chips in their own devices.

    Would much rather see someone pushing forward on competition for LTE chips, but any competition is good.

    • Filip Justin

      Imagine the USS Enterprise.. Data is a core.. what if the Enterprise had more Datas? The Enterprise could travel the galaxy in a much easier manner and deal with more problems at once,

      • mustbepbs

        If the Enterprise had more Datas, I’m sure the crew would go insane. One Data is enough.

  • A1

    Interesting…time to move away from Qualcomm.
    Competition is always good for consumers :)

    • renz

      but then again only samsung phones will use top of the line exynos. other phone maker can use it but not after newer exynos comes out.

    • Guru Tim

      Why time to move away? We haven’t seen Qualcomm’s eight core processors yet.
      Clearly you’re Samsung/Apple’s perfect customer. See a big number and immediately jump ship haha not even waiting to see what the sompetition brings..

  • Cal Rankin

    I hope that this one comes with LTE. I hate that it seems the US version of the Galaxy S line has to go with a different CPU because the Exynos processors don’t really work with LTE.

  • afdsfds

    qualcom SoC’s are just fine, BUT afaik you can’t use roms on them. as long as samsung won’t publish the source codes needed for the community the exynox will always have an disadvantage.

  • Melad360

    only 1.5x faster than sd 800 for a next year chip? that’s still slower than apples a7 chip for single threaded, let alone scaled down to be the same frequency. that’s pretty disappointing for a next year chip. I’m not gunna lie, Apple really crafted a great soc with their a7

    • filaos

      And I don’t understand why their Exynos S would be less powerful than the generic ARM design of the Exynos 6. What’s the point of designing a custom core then ???

      • Melad360

        yeah I don’t get that either, but maybe they did that so it’ll work better with something they have planned in the future? like how Apple did a7 to work perfectly with ios7, maybe their exynos s will work perfect with a new version of touchwiz? or tizen maybe? :o

    • Roberto Tomás

      well, Apple’s chip is currently fastest, but at 2 cores it is only ~75% as fast as current 8974AC variant of their chip, roughly 95% of the original 8974. The article here says 1.43x as fast as current best: ie, the 8974AC.

      and … Samsung made Apple’s chip… it is just silly to think that Samsung won’t outperform them single-threaded, when releasing months after and having already built Apple’s chip for them, so they know what they are doing.

      • Melad360

        well, if you do the math you’ll see that the exynos 6 won’t exactly outperform the a7 in single threaded.

        about 900 single threaded by sd 800, times 1.5 gives us 1350. a7 in single threaded gets about 1300 to 1400. that’s pretty close, but when you think about the clock speeds… a7 gets that score with 1.3 ghz, and the exynos 6 probably gets that with maybe let’s just say 1.9ghz. scale that down to 1.3ghz and youll get a score of 923 single thread. that’s still pretty low for a next year chip lol

        • filaos

          Obvious demonstration. Anyone denying this math lives in a very distorted reality :-)

        • Roberto Tomás

          you got your cores confused. Samsung’s 5420 scores about 950 per core, while Snapdragon 800s score over 1100 per core.

          the threading efficiency is much higher in the Apple dual core than in the base ARM quad core architectures. A Samsung Exynos 6 that scores 5355 in geekbench 3 (projected from the 1.53x in the article here, from the best 8974AB in the benchmark) will need to have per core scores of about 1820. Apple’s score of ~2500 in geekbench 3 comes on the backs of 2 single cores that score ~1400 per core, while Samsung’s current ~2800 comes on 4 cores (the other 4 are not yet utilized) comes on ~950 single core scores. That makes Apple’s threaded efficiency about 85.7%, while Samsung with 4 cores is only getting roughly 73.6%. This is architecture as well as core dependent, you’ll see the same ratios don’t hold true if you bring Intel’s cores into the equation.

          • Melad360

            I don’t see any 1100 scores from sd 800 here, Samsung own octacore chip is the fastest single threaded android chip right now. but yes you’re right about the efficiency, but I’m not saying the exynos 6 isn’t faster than the a7, I’m saying that coming from a next year chip, scaled down to apples 1.3ghz, it loses. but where are you getting your 1800 per core score from? if it’s 1.53x faster than sd800, that should mean about 1400 per core, based on a score of 920 from the fastest sd800

          • Roberto Tomás

            well then you’re not using the official geekbench browser at — where you can see several scores just by searching qualcomm and then sorting by single core score. Obviously you disagree but that is because you are using inaccurate/non-official scores.

            Looking at the math that I provided, you can see the A7 single core score will be lower. you said you liked math, so .. enjoy. :)

          • Melad360

            I was on the official geek bench website, I clicked on the Android benchmark tab on the right of the page. it shows the average scores for each device and chip. but idk, makes sense, hopefully soon we will see a new chip come out that has the same efficiency and performance of the a7 (by same performance I mean single thread scaled to same clock speeds) very soon

          • Amine Elouakil

            Yes it is the fastest cheater of the lot.

      • filaos

        The fact that they run the factory building the A7 chip has nothing to do with their ability to design a custom core like Apple engineers did. It takes money, time and iterations to get it right and achieve power (not even talking about specific OS optimizations and features like TouchID). Samsung only masters the fabrication process. That’s all we know at this point. They have yet to prove they can design a better core than ARM’s (apparently, they didn’t : 1.43X for Exynos S vs 1.53 for ARM Cortex).

        • telco

          can we consider patent wars on this?

          • filaos

            What do you mean ?

          • telco

            since samsung is their manufacturer for A7 … if by any chance they did come up on a design faster than A7.. apple may come up after their handy work and sue them. of course i understand my comment is pointless :3
            am just lost on processor technologies. peace to both ifan and droidfans

          • Roberto Tomás

            I’d bet serious money that they did in fact contribute to a faster A7 than Apple brought to the table, absolutely.

          • Amine Elouakil

            No they did not, I assume you’ve never been into a R&D vs Manufacturer relationship before, well let me tell you that the Manufacturer has to compromise the initial design and adapt to it manufacturing process and tools, and this always leads to compromises lowering the initial specs, of course the relation is ruled by a requirement book but compromises but as long as these compromise stay withing an acceptable marging they are approved, anyway to resume, the final product does not beat the therotical numbers of the design/concept (of course there are enhancement that are made in the whole loop to have a better product but that’s another story)

          • Roberto Tomás

            sounds like you obviously dream a lot about things you don’t understand. thanks for chiming in, peeper

          • Amine Elouakil

            As a Mechanical and Design Engineer and as a Methods leader in one of the biggest companies in the world, sure I dream alot about these kind of relationships. lol!

            Please stop making a fool of yourself, TSMC is a small player in the foundry world? lol? they are the biggest player in the world, they are so big, they even build chips for other companies that have their own fabs such as Intel (which has more advanced nods due to their own huge R&D) and Samsung (it’s what we call outsourcing) and for reference TSMC is about ten to twenty times as big as Samsung Semiconductors despite the billions spent by Samsung on this division. Needless to say that the S800 you are talking about and the rest of the Qualcomm SoC are being built at TSMC, Nvidia, AMD/ATI, Broadcom
            and many others doe the same. And lol at IBM being one of biggest foundries, with two small plants in the US I doubt there is even room for comparaison.

            Please check your facts next time before making yourself look as a fool, ok?

        • Roberto Tomás

          well, you’re wrong. The IP design for the architecture is basically all ARM. Neither company is involved. Apple scores higher by increasing cache size, requiring a slower core. that and more/faster cache is 99% of the improvement. it increases heat and limits clock speed and core count in a low TDP system. and it is all basic IC stuff, the type of thing they actually teach in college now-a-days. While, actually being able to build it is a large and complex skillset. Samsung’s contribution results in high yields and better prices, and arguably a better implementation able to clock higher. They have the upper hand in IP: it is why Apple sues while Samsung innovates.

          • filaos

            One quite convincing argument denying all facts, benchmarks and tech explanations available everywhere. Weird.

          • Amine Elouakil

            It’s ARM, because it’s a custom architecture based on ARM Cortex AX; the key word is CUSTOM.

            The custom architecture goes beyond cache or bus size.


          • Roberto Tomás

            did you even read my comment? I mentioned the custom instruction work. And … did you read the article you cited??? Almost right at the start he says it “is a 64-bit ARMv8 core and not some Apple designed ISA. “

          • Amine Elouakil

            Are you having some reading issues ? why are you talking about instruction sets now? weren’t we talking about ARCHITECTURE? or are you confusing the two? get real .

            It uses the ARMv8 instruction sets, as the older version uses ARMv7x sets that’s not the point, the point is that the Architecture of the A7 is not CORTEX A53/A57 (which is the only ARM own designed architecure that uses ARMv8 instruction) sets nor A15 nor A9 …. they made a custom architecture that uses ARMv8 Instruction sets, read again!

      • Amine Elouakil

        They don’t say 8974AC, which is a usual marketing stint, trust me if it was the 8974AC Samsung would say it loud and clear, just assume it’s the entry level AA version they are talking about

        • Roberto Tomás

          they do say it loud and clear, both “the snapdragon 800” and the one that is “the fastest of 2013”.

          • Amine Elouakil

            heh? No they could say S800 8974 AC if they wanted and they don’t as they always do in this kind of PR never seens CPU or GPU makers PR when they release a new card ? or even Apple when they do their curves and comparaison with older chips? it’s always the slowest version so they can boast the highest numbers, not to mention that Samsung NEVER used the 8974AC, but if you want to belive in your delusion fell free to do so, I’m just telling you what the whole industry does and Samsung is one of the leaders when it comes to marketing stunt.

          • Roberto Tomás

            no if you read, there are two different claims in the article. they DID say it clearly. you’re the one who is deciding what it should say.

          • Amine Elouakil

            lol! Where did they say 8974AC show it to me ! the writter of this artical used the phrase :”than Qualcomm’s top 2013 mobile chip” just to avoid repetition and say S800, basic rules of grammar, also if you don’t believe me read the VIA section and the source. you are just being a blind fanboy here.

          • Roberto Tomás

            Look you’re really flippin’ out, and I don’t want to get too much more into this with you when you are behaving this way. Your perception is that it is just a grammatical aberration, but to my mind the words someone actually use are important — even though I admit it is open to interpretation. I guess the source may be more clear, but working from the text here, it is likely the 8974AC because that is the fastest part from Qualcomm in 2013, and that is what the article says.

          • Amine Elouakil

            I repeat my self again Samsung did not work with the 8974AC, if it was the AC version Samsung will NOT miss the opportunity to do so it’s the same story with a company releasing new hardware, AMD does it, Intel does it, Nvidia does it, Apple does it…….and they are using the generic name S800 to use the confusing, so no they are comparing it to the base model.

            the articale here is not wrong, the S800 is indeed Qualcomm fastest of the year, and that’s what Qualcomm wants you to know and that’s why they used this name scheme, for general public and tech orientated people but not enthousiast which don’t know that there are different version of the S800 the S800 as a whole is the fastest of Qualcomm in 2013.

            Again I maintain my point you are wrong here, I explaned this to you for the third time if you don’t want to understand, then you are free to do so, I presented the arguments it’s your take or leave

          • Roberto Tomás

            I don’t know why you keep repeating yourself… and if you read the quote from the original source, which I kindly provided so we could stop arguing (you moron), you’ll notice that it is not directly attributable to Samsung at all, so the fact that they aren’t working with 8974AC is of No Consequence Whatsoever.

          • Amine Elouakil

            Original source doesn’t even state any other information about the S800 other than the new exynos is faster than it, So why are you maintaining this point, this is not about “you morron” I’ve never treated it you as such, I’m just asking you to not believe PR annoucement they are always misleading and incomplet, and even the number stated above I’m sure is not true or rather is true for one benchmark, Samsung is one of the worst comparnies when it comes to PR Marketing, heck they even cheat benchmarks from software side and even hardware(the SoC overclock it self when it detects it running a benchmark, a clock that the devices gets to when it detect a benchmark and will never run at such speed no matter what other application you launch)

          • Amine Elouakil

            NO, the AUTHOR use that to not repeat himself basic rules of grammar ! ITS NOT SAMSUNG THAT SAY THAT

    • Rushan

      A7 is faster on IOS, if you run the android on A7, it will lag like hell and Exynos on IOS will be speed as rocket.

      • Melad360

        A7 is faster architecturally, doesn’t matter what os you run it ok. It’s the widest arm chip ever made, that makes a huge difference in ipc, so a7 is faster as a chip regardless of the software

      • filaos

        Another awfully biased myth. One powerfull ARM is one powerfull ARM chip. Stop imaginating weird denial scenarios.

  • Alan Shearer

    New chipset and chips faster than previous generation chips, news at 11!!

  • Sam

    Qualcomm’s chips are more than just the physical CPU & GPU. For starters, the LTE radio is part of the chip itself. There are also a number of other components that’s already built-in in the chip. Thus, reducing battery consumption.

    Qualcomm chips are amazingly optimized in terms of performance and battery efficiency. Snapdragon 600 is already the better chip in these departments compared to Exynos 5 octa. And now we have Snapdragon 800 which basically crushes the Exynos 5 octa.

    Another thing worth mentioning is that Qualcomm chips provide app developers value-added capabilities:

    Just a tip: the mobile CPU field is more than just the number of cores or the higher benchmark scores.

    • telco

      you happen to know a lot about SD.. just a question… does SNAPDAGON BATTERY GURU really works?

      • Sam

        Haven’t tried battery guru yet. I believe it first analyzes your usage pattern for a week before it works.

  • telco

    can anyone differentiate the best of SD, EXYNOS and A7 of apple?

    • filaos

      Read Anandtech ?

  • yama

    The day when i read an article about one manufacturer releasing a battery that is smaller but 2 times more durable than todays 3200mh batteries.

  • ikeeDx

    BOOO!!!! speed, speed, speed, blah blah blah – we want software enhancements!!!

  • teotsi21

    sure. No need to improve the battery life right? I mean, an iPhone(I am not an Apple guy) can go a whole week on standby without any charging, and has excellent performance with just a dual core 1.3 GHz processor…. If samsung was able to handle all the power of their Exynos, then they would officially destroy Apple.

  • Rmcrys

    People are focused on performance, which for mobile devices is already very high, and less focused on battery and code optimization. Phones are already extremely powerful, see all with 2/3Gb RAM and snapdragon 800 for example, but code (apps/games) still lag behind. If apps or games where better optimized we could see jumps from 50-200%!!! Take raspberry pi for example, a very limited hardware that flies with extremely optimized code. Then see a Note 3 “powerhouse” that is already more powerful than some x86 computers and still apps/games are not so high quality… Hardware development is just doing what software houses don’t…

  • Reflex Era

    Will phones ever reach the level of desktop cpu and gpu will theu