Stupid article by people who can’t do percentages.
Downvoted for false info.with unit pricing expected to range between $180 and $200. In contrast, Qualcomm’s latest premium SoC reportedly costs smartphone manufacturers as much as $280
How is 180 less than half of 280? The saving is “only” 36%.
What is actually the case is that the Qualcomm is 55% more expensive, which is a huge difference from the claim of the headline.
MediaTek being 55% cheaper would be: $280 -55% = $126.$180 * 1.55 = $279
Is the way they’re calculating it
The (most expensive) Qualcomm part is 55% more expensive than the (cheapest) MediaTek part
Isn’t it at least 55% less efficient and powerful?
That’s a weird thing to say, since top Mediatek for a couple of recent generations were actually more powerful than top Qualcomm, including on graphics.
Qualcomm typically has an edge on efficiency, but it’s only an edge, not like they are in different leagues, and MediaTek is absolutely a great option if you want a high end very powerful phone.
IMO it’s by far the best (only really good) place to save cost if you want to make a flagship killer, and at half the price it ought to be a no-brainer.HOWEVER!
After actually reading the article:with unit pricing expected to range between $180 and $200. In contrast, Qualcomm’s latest premium SoC reportedly costs smartphone manufacturers as much as $280
The 180-200 price is repeated in the table shown. <so how is 180 less than half of 280?
Seems to me more like a saving of 36%.I work with OpenGL ES on Android and Mediatek’s GPU whole great on benchmarks has a ton of issues with specific features. Basic stuff like indirect draw causes numerous VRAM corruption issues which make it an absolute pain to work with.
A quick search online also turns up a lot of users with issues in Fortnite and Cod on mobile on those processors.