Talk:Qualcomm Snapdragon

Computing Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

This processor is widely assumed to be vapourware, nobody has ever seen one to my knowledge and Qualcomm have been caught faking Snapdragon demonstration units in the past (IE: claiming a chipset that isn't snapdragon is, then when caught saying it was just supposed to give an idea of what snapdragon might look like)

Is it even notable enough for inclusion? Hideki (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Qualcomm was demoing the Snapdragon at CES 2009, so there should be detailed reports about it in a day or two. In general, I think that a major planned chip of a major industry player is notable. Dimawik (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snapdragon is definitely out and powering quite a number of Android phones now, among other devices. Radaghast (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPU

Do these CPUs have FPU or not? --217.195.52.165 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Model Table

I'm glad to see that the table is working out for everybody. Glad I took the time to do it. Any thoughts on improvements to the table structure? What can we change the Instruction set to that would be a good measure of processing core performance over and above clock speed? DJTachyon (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me so full of "Utilizing Devices" that it turns the rest of the table rather sparse and overlong. Could use splitting out in a separate table perhaps; one with just the device model and the chip model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.176.163 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wireless Technology" - clarification needed

Currently, this article's table features a column called "Wireless Technology". How is this to be interpreted? Are the entries meant to be understood as such that support for a particular technology in hardware is provided (e.g. HSUPA implemented in hardware)? --Abdull (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSM8250?

Is this Chipset really existing? I don't find any MSM8250-Chipset on the Qualcomm Website, so i think this is a mixing up with the old QSD8250, likely because almost all other older and newer Qualcomm chips are MSMs (e.g. MSM72xx, MSM8255). Microsoft says, the new HTC WP7-Devices like HTC 7 Mozart, 7 Surround, 7 Trophy and HD7 have the QSD8250.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsphone/glance.aspx and http://www.qualcomm.com/products_services/chipsets/snapdragon.html

This Wikipedia-Entry confusing many people all around the world (because of the WP7-Launch), so please can anyone fix it? I'm not sure enough the MSM8250 isn't really existing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.50.151 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualcomm Hexagon

Which Snapdragon SoC has Qualcomm Hexagon DSPs interegated into them? `a5b (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     --- All S3, S4 Pro, S4 Plus, S4 Prime and Snapdragon 800 and 600 have Hexagon integrated in them.

Proposed merge

I'm thinking that the article specifically on the Krait family should be merged with this article - as the content is already discussed here, it doesn't seem to merit its own page. I was going to just go ahead and redirect, but some consensus would be much better. Thanks. Noir (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Krait (CPU) nor Scorpion (CPU) have any merit as separate articles. Redirected them here and removed wikilinks to them as to avoid self-redirects. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, thanks. Noir (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krait and Scorpion pages added back, added technological information that doesn't work well on this page. Removed merge template. User931 22:591, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The one and same technical table you added to these respective pages can easily be placed in this article. Reverting.

I think we need more consensus on this before you do drastic changes like this, the page looks very messed up and this page is about the System on chip, not about specific CPU architecture. Reverting back. User931 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove MSM8974 as it was referenced in the leaked roadmap, just like most other current and upcoming S4 processors which aren't even listed on Qualcomm's website. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 19:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All current and upcoming S4 SoCs are listen on Qualcomms website, you just haven't taken a good look. https://developer.qualcomm.com/sites/default/files/snapdragon-specs.pdf The MSM8974 is not listed because it has been cancled. Reverting. User931 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the MSM8974 has NOT BEEN CANCELLED. The document that you refer to lists what is currently available to OEMs. You need to provide a reference that states explicitly that it has been canceled. The fact that it is not on that list does not say anything. In a few short months or weeks, you will see the announcement of the MSM8974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominik78 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     ---- So we can remove MSM8974 from S4 prime list as it is included in new Snapdragon 800 series. S4 prime hence should only contain MPQ8064.

Snapdragon S3 and HTC Sensation

Table includes this phone at 1.5 GHz. In fact, only the Sensation XE runs at 1.5 GHz, the original Sensation clocks in at 1.2 GHz (but still using Snapdragon S3).

Source: HTC Sensation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.34.175 (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About recent edits

Why delete the MSM7225AB even sources supplemented and why remove those note regrading QRD?C933103 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

style="font-size" in tables

Have you ever thought about visually handicapped persons? If a table is to wide, there are other solutions: narrowing columns and/or deleting columns (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of datasheets). --DrSeehas (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FONTSIZE, font-size changes are completely acceptable on templates & tables. Additionally, your constant removal of them are in violation WP:STYLEVAR. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 18:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read in WP:FONTSIZE: "Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates. Additionally, large tables may require a decreased font size in order to fit on screen..." I read in this context "may require" as "if no other solution is available". I have mentioned two other solutions. So you should first think about these before using "font-size". Again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of datasheets.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style is very long. Please explicate which section I am violating. --DrSeehas (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unifying dates

This conversation has been moved from my talk page. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you kindly unified date formats. I tried the same, but User:Gu1dry fights a private edit war against me because Gu1dry was blocked twice after I reported User:Gu1dry to the administrators and as a payback User:Gu1dry reverts nearly all my edits :-( Maybe you could unify the dates in Snapdragon (system on chip)? Thank you. --DrSeehas (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't revert your edits if you didn't violate the WP:MOS. If I was "fighting a private edit war against you", I could find plenty of your "contributions" that were in violation of the WP:MOS. I'm really getting tired of this slander & harassment. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 17:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gu1dry does have a point in that there is no prohibition of short month names in ref section, the big proviso is that this be consistently applied. Looking at Gu1dry's version, I see absolutely no consistency, so my harmonisation is the right way to do it. There is absolutely no MOSNUM violation with DrSeehas' edit [redacted]. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 17:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is consistent. All dates are in dd Month YYYY format except the the accessdates are in dd Mon YYYY format (which are acceptable per the WP:DATEFORMAT) to make the reference section much easier to read. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand the world of User:Gu1dry: e.g. 11 times 2013-MM-DD is consistent with dd Month YYYY and dd Mon YYYY. ;-) --DrSeehas (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This cheekiness is starting to really get annoying. Please stop trolling. Out of the 126 references in the article there were EIGHT references that had the accessdate formatted different the remaining references, but instead of converting the non-consistent accessdate dates to the consistency, you created a completely new consistency, which violates WP:STYLEVAR (the fourth time I had to mention that exact paragraph to you or a discussion including you). 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 18:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any issue with "long" or "short" months so long as it's consistent, but the date format is not consistent throughout. Even User:Gu1dry's latest preferred version is a mess. Without counting "May" as a spelt-out month, I count more than half of the access dates amongst citations having spelt-out months. The number of short months is considerably less than half of the number of access dates in that article. That's hardly consistency in anyone's book. This version, before anyone appeared to have started fighting over date formats, shows that there is no consistency. Anyway, there is no rule that says access dates have to be included, or that their format can or should be different from publication dates. It just looks weirdly quixotic to have publication dates spelt out and access dates in their three-lettered form. IMHO, you have a choice of having all short dates, or all long dates, but we should keep dates the same throughout. Also, it's not all that difficult keeping an article's dates fully aligned. When there is a tool such as WP:MOSNUMscript, the work becomes a piece of piss. I've just updated the article's citations and aligned all the dates. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gu1dry has reported me for edit warring.

@Ohconfucius: Sorry for implicate you in this issue as you are now the next target for Gu1dry's edit warring. --DrSeehas (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In-ref italicisation

There are currently an excess of populated parameters that are incorrect in this article. Another editor seems to own this article and keeps on warring with me to retain their preferred version that does not comply with MOS:ITALICS. I'm not going any further down this road but only to state Engadget is considered a periodical, hence italicised (the Engadget article itself reflects this); LG Hong Kong, Huawei, Sony Mobile Developer World are not "works" and therefore ought not to be italicised. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging identical cells

Please, merge identical tables cells. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snapdragon 400 Discrepancies

Quallcom states Snapdragon 400 as

Krait 200 up to 1,7 GHz (https://developer.qualcomm.com/discover/chipsets-and-modems/snapdragon) Krait 300 up to 1,7 GHz (http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/800-600-400-200/specs)

Then it says in the table 8930AA is up to 1,7GHz but both 8930AA-devices, namely the HTC First & One Mini, only clock up to 1,4GHz. (http://www.htc.com/us/smartphones/htc-one-mini/#specs) (http://www.htc.com/us/smartphones/htc-first/#specs) 188.96.80.87 (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]