[Arun]

http://www.timlab.it/Download/SESSIO...E_Workshop.pdf
If that link is too slow (or no longer works) you can try using the Google cache: http://www.google.com/search?q=http%...E_Workshop.pdf

Major revelations include:
- MSM8960's Krait core is running at 1.5-1.7GHz and it's only the APQ8064/MSM8974 that will reach 2.0-2.5GHz.
- 800MHz Cortex-A5 MSM7227A (& absurdly named 600MHz MSM7225A SKU) on 45nm for ultra-low-cost smartphones.
- MDM9615 (28nm shrink of the 100Mbps LTE MDM9600) is slated for Q2 2012 production which is earlier than expected.
- Unannounced MSM8974 is a combination of the APQ8064 application processor and the 150Mbps LTE MDM9625 baseband.
- MSM8230 will only support 50Mbps LTE/21Mbps HSPA+ rather than 100Mbps LTE/42Mbps HSPA+ like the MSM8960.
- Unconfirmed MSM8228 ("in planning"): 14.4Mbps HSPA+/2x1.0-1.2GHz Krait/512KB L2/720p video/Adreno 305.
- All future Qualcomm devices with LTE support TD-SCDMA for China Mobile.

Analysis:
- I'm willing to bet the iPhone 6 will use the MDM9615. Previously it was unclear if it would be ready on time, but if it's currently on schedule to be in mass production by Q2 2012 and Apple is the lead customer, it could be ready for an iPhone 6 in late September 2012. It's also the only solution that supports not only GSM/HSPA/LTE but also CDMA (for Verizon) and TD-SCDMA (for China Mobile).
- The 45nm MSM7227A is a very attractive solution for the ultra-low-cost market but it'll face tough competition from 40nm 1xCortex-A9 solutions from Broadcom and ST-Ericsson (which should be nearly as cheap since A9 isn't much bigger than A5 compared to a 3G baseband and LPDDR2 hopefully won't be noticeably more expensive than LPDDR1 in that timeframe). The package isn't clear from that presentation (11x11 is insane as you need 12x12 for PoP memory) but if it's fully compatible with the MSM7227 then that's a very big selling point. It also helps that Qualcomm has also indicated they are willing to sacrifice their gross margins for ultra-low-cost smartphones.
- The MSM8230 and MSM8228 are both very attractive chips for the mid-range and low-end smartphone markets in their target timeframe and it's nice to see that Qualcomm can apparently scale their LTE architecture all the way from 50Mbps to 150Mbps without paying more die size than necessary. It's not clear if the MSM8974 will be quite as impressive versus competitors but at least this presentation confirms it supports 1080p 60fps (->3D 1080p 30fps) and rather interestingly LPDDR3 (basically doubles data per raw MHz, up to 1600MHz effective versus 1066MHz effective for LPDDR2).

[Lazy8s]

I guess using their architectural license for an improved Cortex-A5 class core wasn't as practical as just licensing the A5 itself.

[ToTTenTranz]

Finally, an ARMv7 update to MSM7227. Low-end smartphones will finally be able to read websites with flash content, yay (at the expense of dirt-poor performance but whatever).

By the way, is there any way to know if the MSM7227A will have a FPU unit, like its predecessor?

They're also sticking to the old-as-hell Adreno 200, apparently with some ~35% higher clocks. I wonder if the Adreno 205 was that much larger..

[Erinyes]

I think Qualcomm have pretty much fixed any holes in their roadmap eh?

Originally Posted by Arun

Major revelations include:
- MSM8960's Krait core is running at 1.5-1.7GHz and it's only the APQ8064/MSM8974 that will reach 2.0-2.5GHz.
- 800MHz Cortex-A5 MSM7227A (& absurdly named 600MHz MSM7225A SKU) on 45nm for ultra-low-cost smartphones.
- MDM9615 (28nm shrink of the 100Mbps LTE MDM9600) is slated for Q2 2012 production which is earlier than expected.
- Unannounced MSM8974 is a combination of the APQ8064 application processor and the 150Mbps LTE MDM9625 baseband.
- MSM8230 will only support 50Mbps LTE/21Mbps HSPA+ rather than 100Mbps LTE/42Mbps HSPA+ like the MSM8960.
- Unconfirmed MSM8228 ("in planning"): 14.4Mbps HSPA+/2x1.0-1.2GHz Krait/512KB L2/720p video/Adreno 305.
- All future Qualcomm devices with LTE support TD-SCDMA for China Mobile.

-Yea i remember reading something to that effect by Metafor in one of the threads. Its lower than expected but IPC is pretty much double that of Snapdragon right? APQ8064/MSM8974 are probably only going to be used in tablets so the higher clock makes sense there.
-How does the Cortex A5 stack up against the current CPU in the MSM7227/7225? (im not sure what they have)
-Hopefully that should reduce power consumption significantly and we'll see LTE phones with more than half a day of usable battery life
-You mean the baseband is integrated or is it a two chip combination?
-I think you mean MSM8930 right? And it makes sense i guess. Its a single core so likely destined for the mid-range market (im not even sure how many of those phones will even need LTE)
-Now MSM8228 sounds very nice for a mid-range smartphone. Krait will bring a big boost in CPU power over current dual cores, and should be more power efficient as well. Not everyone needs LTE and this should also result in cost and power savings.

Analysis:
- I'm willing to bet the iPhone 6 will use the MDM9615. Previously it was unclear if it would be ready on time, but if it's currently on schedule to be in mass production by Q2 2012 and Apple is the lead customer, it could be ready for an iPhone 6 in late September 2012. It's also the only solution that supports not only GSM/HSPA/LTE but also CDMA (for Verizon) and TD-SCDMA (for China Mobile).
- The 45nm MSM7227A is a very attractive solution for the ultra-low-cost market but it'll face tough competition from 40nm 1xCortex-A9 solutions from Broadcom and ST-Ericsson (which should be nearly as cheap since A9 isn't much bigger than A5 compared to a 3G baseband and LPDDR2 hopefully won't be noticeably more expensive than LPDDR1 in that timeframe). The package isn't clear from that presentation (11x11 is insane as you need 12x12 for PoP memory) but if it's fully compatible with the MSM7227 then that's a very big selling point. It also helps that Qualcomm has also indicated they are willing to sacrifice their gross margins for ultra-low-cost smartphones.

-Yea that makes sense. That would allow them to have a single model for the entire world and would simplify manufacturing by having only one SKU.
-If it is compatible with MSM7227 i can see it doing very well. The number of devices which are shipping with MSM7227 right now are staggering. But even if it isnt it should drop costs even further for entry level smartphones. But the Broadcom and ST-E designs with their 800 mhz Cortex A9 class CPU's are still going to be a class ahead so Qualcomm will probably be relegated to the lower end of the low-cost market!

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Finally, an ARMv7 update to MSM7227. Low-end smartphones will finally be able to read websites with flash content, yay (at the expense of dirt-poor performance but whatever).

By the way, is there any way to know if the MSM7227A will have a FPU unit, like its predecessor?

They're also sticking to the old-as-hell Adreno 200, apparently with some ~35% higher clocks. I wonder if the Adreno 205 was that much larger..

Yea the Adreno 200 will be downright ancient by the time these SoC's are available. Granted they are typically going to be used on devices with QVGA/WQVGA/HVGA resolutions, but a bit more graphics horsepower would have been nice. Maybe not Adreno 205 level but something in between would have been nice

[Wishmaster]

On the matter of pure specs of those SoC's I'm not impressed, of course I'm talking about high-end.
- No quad-core CPU until 2013, too late IMO(at least from marketing POV)
- Clock speed's seem low, although without informations on IPC of Krait it's hard to tell what kind of performance we can expect. Definitely faster than A9, but how will it fare against A15?
- GPU numbers and dual channel memory support should mean quite a boost in performance with 225. Will it be enough in 2012? Compared to 220(which is actually leading in many GLBenchmark subtests) this could give us something on the ipad2 level, although DX 9.3 is worrying considering windows 8 support, but this could still change before the release.
- Adreno 305, from the numbers it looks almost like 220. So with improved drivers it should be more than enough for higher-mid/lower-high end devices.
- Adreno 320, almost 2x faster than 225 with dual-channel LPDDR3. Sound impressive, but still not on 'Rouge' level.

More interesting things that I would like to know:
- Wi-Fi Display support coming with recently announced connectivity chips. Will it be used by those new SoC's?
- Will adreno 225, 305, 320 support OpenGL ES '3.0'?

[convergedw]

- No quad-core CPU until 2013, too late IMO(at least from marketing POV)
- Clock speed's seem low, although without informations on IPC of Krait it's hard to tell what kind of performance we can expect. Definitely faster than A9, but how will it fare against A15?

FWIW, some datapoints from another Qualcomm presentation on Krait.

Dual core next gen CPU micro-architecture outperforms a quad core A91
•23% more headroom than A15 expected performance
•47% lower power consumption than A15

[metafor]

Originally Posted by convergedw

FWIW, some datapoints from another Qualcomm presentation on Krait.

Dual core next gen CPU micro-architecture outperforms a quad core A91
•23% more headroom than A15 expected performance
•47% lower power consumption than A15

*very loud cough*

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by convergedw

FWIW, some datapoints from another Qualcomm presentation on Krait.

Dual core next gen CPU micro-architecture outperforms a quad core A91
•23% more headroom than A15 expected performance
•47% lower power consumption than A15

Yeah, I've already seen this presentation. Let's wait and see what Krait will really offer. Maybe they really managed to develop better CPU than A15, although that is rather unlikely.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by Erinyes

Its lower than expected but IPC is pretty much double that of Snapdragon right?

No way - even A15 isn't double Snapdragon. I think it's clear that the A15 will have the performance crown this generation (higher IPC *and* higher clocks) but maybe Krait will be more power efficient.

APQ8064/MSM8974 are probably only going to be used in tablets so the higher clock makes sense there.

According to Qualcomm, APQ8064 is tablet-centric, but MSM8974 supposedly targets smartphones as well.

How does the Cortex A5 stack up against the current CPU in the MSM7227/7225? (im not sure what they have)

ARM11 is 1.25DMIPS/MHz, Cortex-A5 is 1.57DMIPS/MHz, Snapdragon is 2.1DMIPS/MHz, Cortex-A9 is 2.5DMIPS/MHz. Once again, DMIPS doesn't mean that much so don't take these numbers too seriously.

-You mean the baseband is integrated or is it a two chip combination?

Integrated, although just like the MSM8960 which was moved from 40nm to 28nm this looks like a likely contender to be moved to 20nm if it gets delayed too much.

I think you mean MSM8930 right? And it makes sense i guess. Its a single core so likely destined for the mid-range market (im not even sure how many of those phones will even need LTE)

MSM8930 and MSM8230 are two SKUs of the same chip according to that roadmap, and both are dual-core. Also LTE support is good as it costs less per bit for operators, plus Qualcomm doesn't really have a choice here - their 21Mbps baseband architecture in the MDM8200(A) is very inefficient, so LTE basically comes for free if they use they scale down their LTE architecture instead.

-Now MSM8228 sounds very nice for a mid-range smartphone. Krait will bring a big boost in CPU power over current dual cores, and should be more power efficient as well. Not everyone needs LTE and this should also result in cost and power savings.

Absolutely, I don't really understand how it can be slated for production at the same time as MSM8930 despite still being in planning though...

Yea that makes sense. That would allow them to have a single model for the entire world and would simplify manufacturing by having only one SKU.

Ha! You wish. The problem is power amplifiers: for a true world phone you'd need (at least) 5 bands for HSPA, 2 bands for CDMA, and one band for TD-SCDMA. Quite expensive but still doable. But then comes the real problem: LTE bands are not at all harmonised over the world. You'd need one band for AT&T 700MHz, one band for Verizon 700MHz, at least three more bands for the other spectrum they plan to reuse for LTE (depending on your PA arch you *might* be able to share those with the 3G bands). Then you need a bunch of bands for Europe, a bunch of FDD bands for Asia, one TD-SCDMA and one TD-LTE band for China, and so on...

I think going from 3 to 5 bands today to 15-20 bands isn't very realistic. I expect they'll have *at least* one model for the USA (5xHSPA/2xCDMA/USA-LTE), one model for Europe plus some of Asia (5xHSPA/Non-USA-LTE), and one model mostly for China (5xHSPA/TD-SCDMA/TD-LTE). The only way they'll get around this problem is with something like Nujira's Coolteq-l and a wide-band power amplifier (or rather two, one for the bottom bands and one of the top bands). It's possible but not very likely.

Maybe not Adreno 205 level but something in between would have been nice

I'm not sure what you think the difference between 200 and 205 is, but there's basically no possible in-between step. Adreno 200 is a single TMU with a single ALU pipeline, Adreno 205 is a single TMU with two ALU pipelines. The rest of the difference is just minor architectural tweaks and clock speed.

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

- No quad-core CPU until 2013, too late IMO(at least from marketing POV)

AFAIK APQ8064 isn't cancelled - it simply isn't on that roadmap because it isn't a MSM chip. Of course, maybe it really always was the same chip, just with the baseband disabled to speed up certification and be more attractive for tablet designs that want to use 3G/4G modules anyway...

- Adreno 320, almost 2x faster than 225 with dual-channel LPDDR3. Sound impressive, but still not on 'Rouge' level.

Actually I think performance will probably be better than the raw triangle specs would imply. But yes, it's still not on Rogue level.

- Wi-Fi Display support coming with recently announced connectivity chips. Will it be used by those new SoC's?

Qualcomm said Wi-Fi Display will be supported by all 28nm SoCs when paired with the WCN3660, so presumably all of them except for the MSM7227A. The WCN3660 is an intriguing little chip BTW - older presentations clearly say it's still on 65nm (and it'd be too early for 40nm anyway - even CSR and Broadcom are only just starting to sample their first chips this quarter) but it's only 15mm² which is about 40% smaller than the best competitor. My guess is they're actually integrating the MAC on the 28nm baseband itself and only keeping the PHY and RF on the WCN3660 (just like they've been putting the GPS logic entirely on the baseband and kept the RF separate on the 3G RF chip). If I'm right, that's a very good integration strategy.

- Will adreno 225, 305, 320 support OpenGL ES '3.0'?

AFAIK Adreno 305/320 will, 225 will not. More interestingly, this presentation implies 3xx won't support more than DX9.3, whereas both Rogue and Mali-T604 support up to DX11.

[Lazy8s]

Not to start rumors about that last bit, but that might not then be their longer-term solution.

[mczak]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Finally, an ARMv7 update to MSM7227. Low-end smartphones will finally be able to read websites with flash content, yay (at the expense of dirt-poor performance but whatever).

By the way, is there any way to know if the MSM7227A will have a FPU unit, like its predecessor?

They're also sticking to the old-as-hell Adreno 200, apparently with some ~35% higher clocks. I wonder if the Adreno 205 was that much larger..

Yeah, it's an interesting chip. Basically looks like a straight shrink of MSM7227 (same graphics core, same lpddr1 memory, same video support, seemingly same baseband capabilities). Except the cpu core where the arm11 got replaced with the cortex-a5.
Somehow I can't think that they'd skip the fpu (though maybe skip neon?). The a5 isn't a massive upgrade in any case, but it should be slightly faster, using even less die area than the arm11, and the whole chip more power efficient. Overall not too bad, though not really an exciting upgrade over the 7227 (but I'd guess even cheaper).
btw is this the first Cortex-A5 to appear? In any case looks like the A9 didn't quite make it into the cheap category for smartphones appearing end of 2011 / beginning of 2012.
The MSM8228 though will be a massive upgrade for low-end smartphones.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Arun

Actually I think performance will probably be better than the raw triangle specs would imply. But yes, it's still not on Rogue level.

If it's even better then we should get GPU faster than what we have now in iPad2, but slightly too late.

AFAIK Adreno 305/320 will, 225 will not. More interestingly, this presentation implies 3xx won't support more than DX9.3, whereas both Rogue and Mali-T604 support up to DX11.

That's something I can't understand. Slower GPU will get 'Halti' support, faster GPU's won't support DX11, and not even DX10.1. But there's hope for OpenCL, I remember last year presentation where it was implied that those new GPU's will support OpenCL. Hopefully there will be some changes to the GPU architecture. BTW I wonder whether it will be partially based on z460 or maybe completely redesigned and new GPU made by the people that previously worked on Imageon.
Do you think it's safe to assume that 320 will be nothing more than four 305 cores?

[darkblu]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Finally, an ARMv7 update to MSM7227. Low-end smartphones will finally be able to read websites with flash content, yay (at the expense of dirt-poor performance but whatever).

If a sole A8 is all you have to rely on for flash, you're dead in the water. At the same time, an A8 with some 'accelerator' support can be quite adequate for flash player 10.1 through .3. (where the accelerator requirements are a function of targeted resolutions, of course).

[wco81]

Is there an advantage in integrating the baseband with the application processor?

Or how common is the integrated approach? Probably not common since a big volume vendor like Apple is shipping baseband separately from their A4 chips?

What about HTC, Samsung, etc.?

[mczak]

Originally Posted by wco81

Is there an advantage in integrating the baseband with the application processor?

Or how common is the integrated approach? Probably not common since a big volume vendor like Apple is shipping baseband separately from their A4 chips?

What about HTC, Samsung, etc.?

Well the MSM7227 is very popular (qualcomm really the only one offering integrated chips for now). Looks though overall today the total marketshare of integrated baseband/app chips isn't that high. If you believe market studies it's bound to grow however.
I think the advantage is it's just plain cheaper...

[wco81]

Wondering if the firmware can be upgraded or downgraded independently, as is the case now for jailbreaks.

Or would integrated designs make this tougher? Apple may be using Qualcom basebands but looks like they're going to roll their own APU.

[metafor]

Originally Posted by mczak

Well the MSM7227 is very popular (qualcomm really the only one offering integrated chips for now). Looks though overall today the total marketshare of integrated baseband/app chips isn't that high. If you believe market studies it's bound to grow however.
I think the advantage is it's just plain cheaper...

I believe Broadcom's AP offerings also offer integrated baseband. It looks as if Intel and nVidia are moving in that direction as well. There are obvious advantages for mid-tier phones due to cost and board space.

I agree that it may not make much sense at the high-end and tablet space. However, that may change with LTE since the area and cost of a separate modem can be prohibitive.

[fehu]

Originally Posted by darkblu

If a sole A8 is all you have to rely on for flash, you're dead in the water. At the same time, an A8 with some 'accelerator' support can be quite adequate for flash player 10.1 through .3. (where the accelerator requirements are a function of targeted resolutions, of course).

here is nook A8@800MHz saying hallo

[darkblu]

Originally Posted by fehu

here is nook A8@800MHz saying hallo

Unless you know for a fact the various 'media accelerators' in the 3621 (i.e. sgx, c64x, overlay engine, etc) twiddle their thumbs while the device does flash, I'm willing to wager the A8 is not the sole worker under that scenario.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by mczak

Well the MSM7227 is very popular (qualcomm really the only one offering integrated chips for now). Looks though overall today the total marketshare of integrated baseband/app chips isn't that high. If you believe market studies it's bound to grow however.
I think the advantage is it's just plain cheaper...

Originally Posted by metafor

I believe Broadcom's AP offerings also offer integrated baseband. It looks as if Intel and nVidia are moving in that direction as well. There are obvious advantages for mid-tier phones due to cost and board space.

Actually integrated basebands are currently VERY common because:
1) Qualcomm is the market leader.
2) All Nokia S60 devices with 10.2Mbps HSPA (i.e. a truckload of them) use the same custom 45nm integrated baseband from TI. I believe in the past some of their solutions were SiPs but this one is definitely a SoC as indicated by Slide 11 of this presentation: http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/investor...fs/Ritchie.pdf
3) Broadcom is also shipping a 3G baseband in (large) volume to Samsung with a dedicated 312MHz ARM11 application processor next to the 208MHz ARM9 modem: http://www.eetrend.com/files-eetrend...0datasheet.pdf - the BCM2157 is a similar chip targeted at Android that boosts the ARM11 clock speed to 500MHz+ among other things. They are also sampling Cortex-A9 chips both standalone and integrated (with a focus on the latter going forward).
4) Marvell ships a variety of integrated solutions including the PXA910 and PXA920: http://www.marvell.com/cn/platforms/...form-Brief.pdf

And this is only counting chips with a dedicated ARM core for application processing (thus excluding the vast majority of feature phones which reuse the modem ARM core to run the OS). Other companies that will soon be shipping integrated solutions with a dedicated application processor include:
5) ST-Ericsson with the U8500. Ironically, some customers don't want the Nokia-designed 14.4Mbps baseband and would rather use the EMP-designed 21.6Mbps M5730 baseband next to it. In theory, that solution is called the U9500. While thz A9540 and A9600 are discrete, the U4500 is integrated and should be very high volume. They've also got integrated derivatives on their 28nm roadmap.
6) Mediatek with the MT6573 (7.2Mbps HSUPA baseband with a dedicated 650MHz ARM11).

Actually Intel and NVIDIA aren't being too aggressive with baseband integration. The main reasoning behind their respective acquisitions was bundling and being able to provide direct support for the whole platform. I'd expect Intel to integrate a LTE baseband into their second-generation 22nm SoC and NVIDIA to include one in a lower-end derivative on 20nm... but not before.

I agree that it may not make much sense at the high-end and tablet space. However, that may change with LTE since the area and cost of a separate modem can be prohibitive.

I completely fail to see how that is the case. If you only need 50Mbps LTE (e.g. AT&T) and don't need the 2600MHz band, Icera's ICE8060 does it in a 7x7 package with stacked DRAM and a die size of only 15.6mm². Their 28nm solution (which was recently still expected to be back from the fab in Q4) will support 150Mbps LTE with an even slightly smaller die size. What's prohibitive about that?

The only thing ridiculous about LTE is the number of power amplifiers required if you want to support multiple countries or even sometimes just multiple operators in the same country. If anything, that makes modules an even more attractive solution for tablet manufacturers.

[wco81]

Originally Posted by Arun

The only thing ridiculous about LTE is the number of power amplifiers required if you want to support multiple countries or even sometimes just multiple operators in the same country. If anything, that makes modules an even more attractive solution for tablet manufacturers.

What is the story on multi-network, multi-country requirements for LTE?

Different bands mainly?

So far, I've only heard of Verizon and AT&T ramping up. It seems a lot of operators are touting HSPA+ coverage now, with claims of 42 Mbps speeds in some areas.

Are LTE devices going to be interoperable with SIM unlocking? I've heard suggestions that Verizon will find ways to lock devices to their network and it sounded like something beyond SIM locking.

[metafor]

Originally Posted by Arun

Actually integrated basebands are currently VERY common because:
1) Qualcomm is the market leader.

At the high end?

5) ST-Ericsson with the U8500. Ironically, some customers don't want the Nokia-designed 14.4Mbps baseband and would rather use the EMP-designed 21.6Mbps M5730 baseband next to it. In theory, that solution is called the U9500. While thz A9540 and A9600 are discrete, the U4500 is integrated and should be very high volume. They've also got integrated derivatives on their 28nm roadmap.
6) Mediatek with the MT6573 (7.2Mbps HSUPA baseband with a dedicated 650MHz ARM11).

What traction does the U-series have compared to the A-series? What do the respective design wins (if any) look like?

Actually Intel and NVIDIA aren't being too aggressive with baseband integration. The main reasoning behind their respective acquisitions was bundling and being able to provide direct support for the whole platform. I'd expect Intel to integrate a LTE baseband into their second-generation 22nm SoC and NVIDIA to include one in a lower-end derivative on 20nm... but not before.

It takes a while to come up with a design/validation process that can still pump out chip iterations for chips with an integrated baseband, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be instantaneous. Still, I question the bundling explanation for such an acquisition; there are far easier ways to pre-validate platforms other than buying the company.

You wouldn't claim Atheros was acquired just for easier bundling with MSM chips, for instance; even though it'll take a few more generations before full WiFi is integrated into the MSM and MDM series of chips and even longer before the APQ series gets that.

I completely fail to see how that is the case. If you only need 50Mbps LTE (e.g. AT&T) and don't need the 2600MHz band, Icera's ICE8060 does it in a 7x7 package with stacked DRAM and a die size of only 15.6mm². Their 28nm solution (which was recently still expected to be back from the fab in Q4) will support 150Mbps LTE with an even slightly smaller die size. What's prohibitive about that?

Stacked DRAM package compared to none at all? And we're talking Icera's solution here, which, depending on your need, may not fit. The MDM9600 is absolutely huge. The thing's 13x13. 28nm will alleviate this significantly but even then, we're talking a ~8x8 package at best.

With everyone racing to not only compete with Apple on features but also on price and profit margin, I expect at least high-end smartphones to prefer integrated basebands in the future for their LTE solutions.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by metafor

At the high end?

AFAICT, the two highest volume high-end platforms in 2010 were the Qualcomm QSD8x50 on 65nm and the TI OMAP3 on 65nm & 45nm. I'm not sure which came first, but worst case Qualcomm couldn't have been far behind.

What traction does the U-series have compared to the A-series? What do the respective design wins (if any) look like?

I believe Nokia was mostly U8500 and non-Nokia was mostly A9500 (remember it's a Nokia-designed modem) but I could be horribly wrong, and who the hell knows what Nokia vs Non-Nokia volume will look like at this point anyway.

It takes a while to come up with a design/validation process that can still pump out chip iterations for chips with an integrated baseband, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be instantaneous. Still, I question the bundling explanation for such an acquisition; there are far easier ways to pre-validate platforms other than buying the company.

Oh absolutely. NVIDIA had already pre-validated platforms from Qualcomm, Infineon, ST-Ericsson, and Icera - and they'll continue supporting all of them at least in the short-term. In the mid-term, they still need to support CDMA via Qualcomm until Verizon is ready for single-mode LTE handsets (hopefully in 2014).

The basic reason NVIDIA acquired Icera is that they were damn cheap, the technology was damn good, and if they didn't buy them someone else would have because they were running out of cash. The bundling rationale is enough here because on their own Icera had difficulty convincing large handset OEMs to give them a chance but as part of NVIDIA the revenue opportunities are significantly larger. Of course, being able to integrate in the long-term is a very nice bonus, and NVIDIA probably realised this was their last chance to acquire baseband technology.

Stacked DRAM package compared to none at all? And we're talking Icera's solution here, which, depending on your need, may not fit.

Sure, it's still slightly more expensive for multiple reasons including the extra DRAM chip, but it's small stuff and the extra footprint at least is completely negligible. However it's true that ICE8060 only works if you don't need CDMA, TD-SCDMA, 100Mbps LTE, or the 2600MHz band. The 28nm baseband and next-gen RF will fix at least the last two, but they'll still need Qualcomm for CDMA (and it remains to be seen whether they bother with TD-SCDMA or only support TD-LTE for non-Chinese markets).

The MDM9600 is absolutely huge. The thing's 13x13. 28nm will alleviate this significantly but even then, we're talking a ~8x8 package at best.

Meh, it's not the end of the world: QSD8x50 was in a 15x15 package, and Infineon's slim baseband is still 10x10 or 12x12 if you use PoP DRAM! As for die size, I know the exact numbers for all MDM chips and I'm confident a shrink to 28nm (MDM9615) will get it very close to the die size of the MDM6600 on 45nm. Still much bigger than Icera but not too bad. Sadly the presentation in the original post makes clear it'll still be in a 10x10 package.

With everyone racing to not only compete with Apple on features but also on price and profit margin, I expect at least high-end smartphones to prefer integrated basebands in the future for their LTE solutions.

I don't buy it. The smartphone dynamics will be exactly the same as they are today for 3G. So you can be confident you'll see a mix of the two just like on 3G today. NVIDIA, ST-Ericsson, TI, Samsung are all clearly in the standalone camp for LTE in the next 3+ years. And there's little evidence Broadcom or Marvell will integrate LTE at least in the next 2 years. So that's the vast majority of the high-end market right there. Everyone is focusing on integrating 3G in the low-end, not 4G in the high-end! Qualcomm is the exception, not the rule.

[metafor]

Originally Posted by Arun

AFAICT, the two highest volume high-end platforms in 2010 were the Qualcomm QSD8x50 on 65nm and the TI OMAP3 on 65nm & 45nm. I'm not sure which came first, but worst case Qualcomm couldn't have been far behind.

Well, 2010 was an anomaly as it was the introduction of Snapdragon devices. I don't believe Qualcomm had the same dominance at the high-end in 2009 (with the Droid) and may well be behind in 2011 (with Tegra 2). 2012 may be different with the introduction of Krait but that depends entirely on execution and marketing.

Qualcomm may be the leader by a wide margin in the overall handset space but I don't think they are in a good enough position to be considered dominant in the high-end; not yet at least.

I believe Nokia was mostly U8500 and non-Nokia was mostly A9500 (remember it's a Nokia-designed modem) but I could be horribly wrong, and who the hell knows what Nokia vs Non-Nokia volume will look like at this point anyway.

Well, my point is that obviously there isn't a clear preference for integrated modems at the high end. Else the A-series would be relegated to being a tablet-part only.

Oh absolutely. NVIDIA had already pre-validated platforms from Qualcomm, Infineon, ST-Ericsson, and Icera - and they'll continue supporting all of them at least in the short-term. In the mid-term, they still need to support CDMA via Qualcomm until Verizon is ready for single-mode LTE handsets (hopefully in 2014).

The basic reason NVIDIA acquired Icera is that they were damn cheap, the technology was damn good, and if they didn't buy them someone else would have because they were running out of cash. The bundling rationale is enough here because on their own Icera had difficulty convincing large handset OEMs to give them a chance but as part of NVIDIA the revenue opportunities are significantly larger. Of course, being able to integrate in the long-term is a very nice bonus, and NVIDIA probably realised this was their last chance to acquire baseband technology.

Well the point was, why acquire baseband technology at all? It's not nearly as profitable as app processors and requires a completely different skillset and organization than what nVidia does. Moreso, Icera wasn't exactly making money hand over fist despite their die size and power advantages. nVidia obviously has no trouble getting working reference designs using any other baseband company, nor would they have problems partnering with whomever bought Icera to provide modems.

I maintain that if the idea of single-chip integration in the long-term wasn't part of the decision, it would have never been made. Same for Intel and Infineon as well as Atheros and Qualcomm.

Sure, it's still slightly more expensive for multiple reasons including the extra DRAM chip, but it's small stuff and the extra footprint at least is completely negligible.

I don't know about that. 3G chips are cheap enough and integrated options thus far have somewhat lagged behind discrete components (at least on the HSPA side). LTE is a different story. The first to market in this case is the more expensive vendor (qcom) and with a bigger chip. Eventually, the economics may wind down to what 3G is like today.

However it's true that ICE8060 only works if you don't need CDMA, TD-SCDMA, 100Mbps LTE, or the 2600MHz band. The 28nm baseband and next-gen RF will fix at least the last two, but they'll still need Qualcomm for CDMA (and it remains to be seen whether they bother with TD-SCDMA or only support TD-LTE for non-Chinese markets).

I suppose it's true that certain models (particularly if you just target AT&T) will only need something along the lines of an Icera 50mbps LTE chip. However, this really all depends on what Apple does. If they put out an iPhone with at least universal LTE support for the U.S. bands (mind you, this won't be until iPhone6 at the very least) then others will follow suit.

Meh, it's not the end of the world: QSD8x50 was in a 15x15 package, and Infineon's slim baseband is still 10x10 or 12x12 if you use PoP DRAM! As for die size, I know the exact numbers for all MDM chips and I'm confident a shrink to 28nm (MDM9615) will get it very close to the die size of the MDM6600 on 45nm. Still much bigger than Icera but not too bad. Sadly the presentation in the original post makes clear it'll still be in a 10x10 package.

More to the point, integrated LTE will arrive to market on 28nm (and be in devices) well before the MDM chip on 28nm. We're really talking about a choice between 45nm LTE baseband vs 28nm Snapdragon with integrated LTE baseband. Or Icera's 28nm baseband I suppose, though as you pointed out, there are certain can-we-trust-this-vendor issues there.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by metafor

Well, 2010 was an anomaly as it was the introduction of Snapdragon devices.

Agreed. Qualcomm was very strong with the MSM72xx in 2009 and is doing well with the MSM7x30/M8x55 in 2011 though... and it could actually be argued that the MSM7201A and MSM8x55 were high-end solutions in early 2009 and early 2011 respectively because OMAP3 and Tegra 2 weren't available yet in January of these years. And in 2008, the MSM72xx was clearly a high-end solution, and it dominated the Windows Mobile and early Android markets. So Qualcomm has a long history of being very competitive in the high-end at least.

Well, my point is that obviously there isn't a clear preference for integrated modems at the high end. Else the A-series would be relegated to being a tablet-part only.

Agreed, although I think it's even more correct to say that OEMs care more about having a good 21Mbps baseband than they care about saving a few dollars.

Well the point was, why acquire baseband technology at all? It's not nearly as profitable as app processors and requires a completely different skillset and organization than what nVidia does. Moreso, Icera wasn't exactly making money hand over fist despite their die size and power advantages. nVidia obviously has no trouble getting working reference designs using any other baseband company, nor would they have problems partnering with whomever bought Icera to provide modems.

I maintain that if the idea of single-chip integration in the long-term wasn't part of the decision, it would have never been made. Same for Intel and Infineon as well as Atheros and Qualcomm.

Okay, put that way, I can't really disagree. I'd still frame it slightly differently though:
NVIDIA does not believe anything below the high-end market (depending on your definition that may include the upper mid-range) is worth pursuing in the next 2 years, and they do not believe an integrated baseband will be worth it there for even longer than that. But:
1) They do want to target the low-end market eventually and they know they need an integrated baseband for that. They don't want to be 'locked out' of most of the volume in a couple of years.
2) They fear being 'integrated out': when they started sampling Tegra 1, Icera/Infineon/Ericsson/Qualcomm all had (relatively) slim basebands on their roadmap. Now the first three have been acquired by companies targeting the application processor market and so (just like Qualcomm) it's risky to depend on them in the long-term (and it obviously doesn't help to have to redirect your customers to the sales teams of your direct competitors).

However, unlike the Infineon acquisition (which is definitely about integration in the long-term, sorry if I somehow implied otherwise, the problem for Intel is finding the right time to integrate and as I said that's probably the late 22nm generation), NVIDIA likely wouldn't have done it anyway if the price hadn't been so low and they hadn't been able to justify it financially just on a bundling basis in the short/mid-term.

I don't know about that. 3G chips are cheap enough and integrated options thus far have somewhat lagged behind discrete components (at least on the HSPA side). LTE is a different story. The first to market in this case is the more expensive vendor (qcom) and with a bigger chip. Eventually, the economics may wind down to what 3G is like today.

Strictly speaking Samsung beat Qualcomm to market by a lot... And that wasn't just a one-off as their solution is also used in the Samsung Droid Charge at Verizon next to a Via Telecom CDMA baseband. And GCT (with LG LTE IP) actually had a LTE data device based on the GDM7240 available at Verizon at the same time as Qualcomm (which they insist truly has integrated RF amazingly enough although I suspect it's still on 65nm).

Also I'm not sure why you say this is somehow different. Qualcomm has always been early to new standards (including WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, and HSPA+) and they've always had bigger chips than some competitors (but also higher performance i.e. channel efficiency) which they partially compensated by a process advantage.

I suppose it's true that certain models (particularly if you just target AT&T) will only need something along the lines of an Icera 50mbps LTE chip. However, this really all depends on what Apple does. If they put out an iPhone with at least universal LTE support for the U.S. bands (mind you, this won't be until iPhone6 at the very least) then others will follow suit.

Actually, unlike their 21Mbps HSPA+ smartphone platform, Icera's 50Mbps LTE solution is mostly targeted at data devices and tablets. It's still based on a 130nm RF chip that requires an analogue baseband which increases their "active but low bandwidth" power consumption by quite a bit compared to their new 65nm 5MHz RF chip. Still before the acquisition they were trying to get smartphone design wins with it (since competitors' power consumption isn't great either) but not as aggressively. They had a 20MHz 65nm RF chip on the roadmap expected slightly before the 28nm baseband but I don't know if they'll bother releasing it before the 28nm baseband.

Anyway smartphone manufacturers have been making tons of variants of the same phone for a long time, and they'll need to do so anyway for Europe and Asia. What's one more variant for Verizon if it saves you three or four PAs (plus a tiny bit of money on the baseband since QCOM likely asks less for GSM-only despite being the same chip)?

More to the point, integrated LTE will arrive to market on 28nm (and be in devices) well before the MDM chip on 28nm. We're really talking about a choice between 45nm LTE baseband vs 28nm Snapdragon with integrated LTE baseband. Or Icera's 28nm baseband I suppose, though as you pointed out, there are certain can-we-trust-this-vendor issues there.

According to the presentation I linked, MSM8960 is 6 months ahead of MDM9615, and it is indeed one of the first LTE solution for smartphones that should genuinely result in good enough battery life.

However it's not the only viable solution for smartphones in that timeframe (besides Icera for 50Mbps LTE). I'm fairly confident the 40nm ST-Ericsson M7400 would be quite a bit better than the MDM9200.