Qualcomm retracts Snapdragon benchmarks over idle apps
The race for efficiency in the laptop world just got a little more complicated. Qualcomm, the maker of the Snapdragon C chip, has made an update to its performance benchmarks, signaling a subtle shift in how the new processor’s potential is presented to the public.
Less than a week after initially touting claims of performance gains, the company reached out to publications asking for an updated set of efficiency benchmarks. The core of the change is the removal of two specific results from the previous presentation, ostensibly to improve clarity and relevance.
This move, however, has sparked more curiosity than clarity. While the results themselves remained identical between the original and updated slides, the omission of data raises eyebrows, especially considering the efficiency claims made so recently. We asked the company why these results were removed, but the response remains elusive.
The two removed benchmarks, which were prefixed with the acronym ABL, remain a point of mystery. While the exact meaning is yet to be clarified by Qualcomm, it is highly probable that ABL referred to metrics related to endurance, perhaps “all-day battery life,” suggesting that the removed data likely concerned real-world usage scenarios.
The comparison pits the Snapdragon C against Intel’s N250 processor, a quad-core chip built on Intel 7 capable of up to 3.8 GHz. The Snapdragon C, meanwhile, boasts eight Kryo CPU cores, allowing individual cores to boost up to 3 GHz, with the overall system running at up to 2 GHz across all cores.
When analyzing the efficiency claims, it is crucial to note the testing conditions. Qualcomm did not test the chips under AC power; instead, the comparison focused strictly on battery performance. This focus is critical, as battery power often reveals a different picture of real-world efficiency than AC power usage, which is generally a narrower window for these types of chips.
Furthermore, the comparison setup involved specific hardware configurations. Qualcomm measured the Snapdragon C on a 16-inch device and compared it to an 11.6-inch Acer TravelMate running the Intel N250. The Intel machine was reportedly configured to match the power level of a 16-inch screen, suggesting a focus on total system power rather than raw component comparison.
Although the benchmarks themselves offer a framework for understanding performance disparities, they lack concrete numerical units. This means that while the narrative points toward efficiency gains, the precise, quantifiable advantage of the new Snapdragon technology remains a compelling mystery that is still waiting for a definitive explanation.
Buy on Amazon
Credit
