• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Qualcomm's first Nuvia based SoC - Hamoa

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
FlameTail said:
My first impressions of reading that was positive.

*A clear, simplified tiering structure helps users navigate our platform capabilities from mainstream to premium.*

Seems they are committed to having a proper and clear naming scheme. Much appreciated coming the from their "8cx Gen 3" or the whack Intel unveiled recently.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure we will still get nonsensical model names. The announcement is completely empty on any details aside that X (not from X Corp) is involved.
 
poke01 said:
I think Apple has it. M1, M1 Pro/Max/Ultra

Simple not too complicated like AMd and intel
Click to expand...
Except does that used MBA you're looking at have the 7 core GPU M1 or the 8 core GPU M1? Or perhaps it's a MBP and it may have the 8 core CPU M1 Pro or the 10 core CPU M1 Pro? And so it goes. Model numbers would actually be simpler. M2 Pro 12 Core CPU 19 Core GPU is worse than a 5 digit model number.
 
Last edited:
gdansk said:
Except does that used MBA you're looking at have the 7 core GPU M1 or the 8 core GPU M1? Or perhaps it's a MBP and it may have the 8 core CPU M1 Pro or the 10 core CPU M1 Pro? And so it goes. Model numbers would actually be simpler. M2 Pro 12 Core CPU 19 Core GPU is worse than a 5 digit model number.
Click to expand...
That is much more simpler than Intel 4.2gz Core Ultra 1900H 12 Core 24 threads.
Let's not even get started on the GPU terms within those x86 CPUs...

Don't act like Intel and AMD don't have more info after their model names as well. It can more annoying as well. Most people say M1 or M1 Pro when talking specs.
 
gdansk said:
Except does that used MBA you're looking at have the 7 core GPU M1 or the 8 core GPU M1? Or perhaps it's a MBP and it may have the 8 core CPU M1 Pro or the 10 core CPU M1 Pro? And so it goes. Model numbers would actually be simpler. M2 Pro 12 Core CPU 19 Core GPU is worse than a 5 digit model number.
Click to expand...

That information is encoded in the serial number of the Mac that contains it. There is no need to have a different identifier for the CPU because you can't swap CPUs around in Macs so what it was built/sold with is what it still has. See: https://everymac.com/systems/by_year/macs-released-in-2023.html

While the model number is the same for a given Mac regardless of the CPU, the order number is not and the initial letters will indicate what CPU it has. You can also look a particular Mac up by serial number and see exactly how it is configured beyond just the CPU.
 
poke01 said:
That is much more simpler than Intel 4.2gz Core Ultra 1900H 12 Core 24 threads.
Let's not even get started on the GPU terms within those x86 CPUs...

Don't act like Intel and AMD don't have more info after their model names as well. It can more annoying as well. Most people say M1 or M1 Pro when talking specs.
Click to expand...
It isn't. Make a listing with 1900H everyone knows what it is even with limited information.
Say I have an M1 Pro... well no one knows what it is.

Sent from my MacBook Pro.
 
Doug S said:
That information is encoded in the serial number of the Mac that contains it. There is no need to have a different identifier for the CPU because you can't swap CPUs around in Macs so what it was built/sold with is what it still has. See: https://everymac.com/systems/by_year/macs-released-in-2023.html

While the model number is the same for a given Mac regardless of the CPU, the order number is not and the initial letters will indicate what CPU it has. You can also look a particular Mac up by serial number and see exactly how it is configured beyond just the CPU.
Click to expand...
Few sellers include the serial number or even MPHE3LL code in listings. They choose to focus on marketing than simple model numbers. It's worse, you don't have to defend Apple all the time.
Screenshot 2023-10-11 at 6.34.44 PM.png
So clear. So crisp. So much better than 1235U.
 
Tigerick said:
Are you serious? Cause I can't tell😵
Click to expand...
The naming scheme of Apple chips is objectively inferior and more prone to confusion if the users don't include the entire string which Apple themselves do not include everywhere (see above).
One cannot from the reported SoC name determine the configuration of the CPU nor the iGPU. Meanwhile with Intel and AMD naming schemes you can from the chip name alone determine this using a simple Google query. Apple is above such useful naming. Or - as Doug S already showed by linking to a 3rd party site keeping track of Apple SKUs - they don't want to show users that because they did the same thing with Intel Macs. But even there machdep.cpu.brand_string had a real model number unlike Apple Silicon Macs.

Complimenting their SoC naming scheme as superior is like calling a language superior for having only one word for blue and green. It's simpler but a bit useless when one calls color of the sky and of the grass by the same name. Note that to figure out which SoC you actually have one must ask instead which model MacBook do I have. This alone is indicative of naming scheme failure. But then you end up with some model number like MPHE3LL which are only tracked by 3rd party databases instead of easily searchable on Apple.com. Despite having far fewer SoC SKU they still managed to mess up their naming scheme nearly as much as AMD.

Qualcomm has a clean slate and hopefully will do something sensible instead of Qualcomm Snapdragon X Hyper Ultra Pro Max Final Turbo Special Champion Edition where they still need, somehow, to specify how many cores are included too. I'm optimistic everyone on earth (except Apple) can come up with a SoC naming scheme that actually works by the CPUID name string alone. That is to say I am very serious and hope Qualcomm marketing does NOT copy Apple marketing.

Sent from my MacBook Pro.
 
Last edited:
I have been thinking, when will Apple Qualcomm switch to chiplets for their PC SoCs?

It will certainly be advantageous, because if the CPU and GPU are on independent chiplets, they can be scaled up differently.

For example: The M2 Ultra comes with a massive GPU to boot due to the inherent limitation of it being basicallt 2 M2 Maxes glued together. Some people may not want such a huge GPU for their workloads, and would want an SKU with a big CPU and small GPU. Chiplets will certainly help deliver this in a streamlined way.

More than Apple though, it certainly matters to Qualcomm who is only an SoC vendor and should sell their chips to OEMs who then put it in a product.
 
gdansk said:
Few sellers include the serial number or even MPHE3LL code in listings. They choose to focus on marketing than simple model numbers. It's worse, you don't have to defend Apple all the time.
Click to expand...

So you ask them. If they won't tell you, you don't buy. It isn't hard. If someone offers a Dell Inspiron 15 with a Core i5 CPU you don't know what Core i5 it comes with and likely neither do they so you'll probably need to get the serial number from them to look up on Dell's site. Don't act like this is some kind of problem specific to Apple that Intel and AMD have solved with their CPU model numbers. It is only solved if you are buying a bare CPU, not when you are buying a PC.
 
Doug S said:
So you ask them. If they won't tell you, you don't buy. It isn't hard. If someone offers a Dell Inspiron 15 with a Core i5 CPU you don't know what Core i5 it comes with and likely neither do they so you'll probably need to get the serial number from them to look up on Dell's site. Don't act like this is some kind of problem specific to Apple that Intel and AMD have solved with their CPU model numbers. It is only solved if you are buying a bare CPU, not when you are buying a PC.
Click to expand...
Actually having CPU model numbers is strictly superior, even for Apple's devices. Apple's decision means they show "Apple M1 Pro" for two different SoC configurations in their own operating system. It's simply omitting the implicit model number which now exists by having different configurations. Pretending not to have model numbers is worse than having a 5 digit model number. And they control the OS and hardware so have no one to blame for chosing "Apple M1 Pro" instead of "Apple M1 Pro 10-Core CPU, 16-Core GPU" during device tree enumeration in XNU but themselves. And they doubled down with M2 Pro having 3 different SoC configurations with the same reported name.

You're stuck on one example of how it causes problems where it shouldn't and I'm stuck on people calling this a good naming scheme. Yes, you can always work around bad naming schemes by talking more. But the fake simplicity isn't an improvement. If it was genuinely simple, that'd be great. But presumably Apple couldn't actually keep it that simple because of the economic force of needing to bin parts.
 
Last edited:
gdansk said:
You're stuck on one example of how it causes problems where it shouldn't and I'm stuck on people calling this a good naming scheme. Yes, you can always work around bad naming schemes by talking more. But the fake simplicity isn't an improvement. If it was genuinely simple, that'd be great. But presumably Apple couldn't actually keep it that simple because of the economic force of needing to bin parts.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing it is a GOOD naming scheme, at least not in terms of what you want which is to be able to identify every iteration from the name alone. But Intel's naming scheme is far worse due to the massive multiplicity of SKUs designed to squeeze every last dollar via binning and market segmentation. You might be able to tell exactly what an Intel CPU is from the name, but the normal person who doesn't follow them closely will have to look up the model number to see what its clock speeds/turbo modes are, its TDP, what stuff it has enabled and disabled, and so forth.

You're stuck on "oh no I can't immediately tell the two M1 Pro models apart from the name" and ignoring that Intel has like 100 different SKUs in each generation and excuse that because it is possible to look it up and figure out its capabilities in ark. How is that any easier than looking up information on the Macbook whose model number tells you it has M1 Pro vs M1 Max, and you need the order number or serial number to tell you which of the two possible M1 Pros it is?
 
Doug S said:
I'm not arguing it is a GOOD naming scheme, at least not in terms of what you want which is to be able to identify every iteration from the name alone. But Intel's naming scheme is far worse due to the massive multiplicity of SKUs designed to squeeze every last dollar via binning and market segmentation. You might be able to tell exactly what an Intel CPU is from the name, but the normal person who doesn't follow them closely will have to look up the model number to see what its clock speeds/turbo modes are, its TDP, what stuff it has enabled and disabled, and so forth.

You're stuck on "oh no I can't immediately tell the two M1 Pro models apart from the name" and ignoring that Intel has like 100 different SKUs in each generation and excuse that because it is possible to look it up and figure out its capabilities in ark. How is that any easier than looking up information on the Macbook whose model number tells you it has M1 Pro vs M1 Max, and you need the order number or serial number to tell you which of the two possible M1 Pros it is?
Click to expand...
Seventy billion SKUs isn't a problem of the naming scheme. That's a market segmentation problem that their naming scheme can accommodate. They have a model number. CPUID reports it. Operating systems including XNU relay it. It works.

And my entire digression here is because someone complimented Apple's naming scheme of M1/Pro/Ultra/Max and implied Qualcomm should follow. It would be an even worse match for Qualcomm because they don't plan to control the devices it ends up in. They don't control the operating systems it ends in. Apple's elided model numbers is solved by using a serial number which again Qualcomm won't have control over.

It's such a bad naming scheme but Apple can get away with it. Qualcomm won't get away with it and so shouldn't try to eliminate model numbers in the ARM Main ID registers.
 
Last edited:
adroc_thurston said:
No but Santa Clara is where Nuvia is at so someone there got laid off.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

Doug S said:
They have 50K employees so 1200 is a drop in the bucket. The smartphone slowdown obviously hits them harder than about anyone so it is surprising they didn't layoff more.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they're also busy trying to push into other markets. If adroc is correct and some of the Nuvia staff got canned, that would have little direct relation to a flagging smartphone market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top