Ranked: The worst phone processor ever failed

While the industry is eyeing the upcoming Exynos 2200 SoC, which will power Samsung’s Galaxy S22 series, with a sense of uncertainty, this prediction is nothing new to mobile chipset fans. This is especially so with Samsung’s Exynos vs. Qualcomm’s flagship smartphones, where the design gains ebb and flow between the two chipset makers every few years.

Here Android authority, We have seen the fair share of our hits and misses in the chipset development chips game. So here are some bad phone processors that have failed – and look back at the devices they’ve ruined.

Probably the most problematic chipset of recent times is the hot Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 of 2015. Its smaller Snapdragon 808 sibling has also paid the price for Qualcomm’s reputation.

Before the chip landed, rumors spread that the processor had suffered from overheating. Sure, the LG G Flex 2, the first phone to play the chipset, suffers from performance throttling due to the heat, handing the benchmark below the previous-gen chipset. As more handsets have been introduced, widespread fears of chip-level problems have been confirmed. The HC M9 and Xiaomi Mi Note Pro are two other high-profile launches that were a little hotter that year.

It is noteworthy that Samsung did not use Qualcomm for its Galaxy S6 release that year – exclusively in-house with the Exynos 7420. The cause of the overheating was reported but neither side confirmed it. Samsung returned to use Qualcomm’s 800 series chip the following year. Do what you want

Interestingly, Qualcomm also offered a low-performance, hexa-core Snapdragon 808 chip in 2015. This is a new approach to the company’s 800 series that we haven’t seen since. The chip offered two smaller CPU cores and a smaller GPU than the 810. After its defeat with the G Flex 2, LG picked up the 808 for that year’s G4 flagship. Although the 808 was colder than the 810, enthusiasts and pundits were not happy with the low performance points and still complained about the temperature. Talk about rubbing salt in my wounds – d’oh!

Intel wasn’t even made in 4G

Intel has made this list not because of the loss of its chips but because of its negligible impact on the smartphone space. However, it was not for lack of effort. Intel and Google entered into a joint venture in September 2011 to provide Android support for Intel processors, followed by Intel Atom processors designed for phones under the Medfield, Clover Trail and Moorfield architectures.

Two of the first Android smartphones to use an Intel processor were the Lenovo K800 and Motorola RAZR i in 2012. But the early Atom lineup was probably the most popular in the tablet space None of these have become knock-out devices. Asus has become the most sought after recipient of Intel’s mobile chipsets. Asus’ 2014 Zenfone series with dual-core Intel Atom processor has been launched. The company has moved on to a quad-core Atom chipset for the 2015 Zenfone 2 and Zenfone Zoom handsets. But as far as the company goes – Asus has finally moved on to MediaTek and Qualcomm chipsets like the rest of the industry.

See also: What is a SoC? Everything you need to know

To be fair for Asus and Intel, this partnership has created phones that offer decent performance for their price. However, they fell short of the CPU and GPU capabilities of the leading flagship chipsets at the time.

There were more ambitions for Atom, including Intel’s Silvermont CPU- and Arm Mali GPU-based Sophia lineup. However, Intel lagged far behind in modem development and did not bring WiFi-only variants to customers. Despite announcing 3G and 4G chipsets, the SoFIA project continues to miss its launch dates. Intel finally canned the entire portfolio in 2016 and moved away from the smartphone space, with little effect. However, some CPU work on Intel smartphones runs on a budget processor created by Unisk.

Double with MediaTek’s Deca-Core

When it comes to chipsets that don’t end up in the hands of consumers, does anyone remember the MediaTek Helio X20 and X30? The 2017 Helio X20 was well ahead of its time – the first chipset to have a tri-cluster CPU format that you will now find on all high-end Android mobile chipsets.

Despite boasting a fancy tri-cluster design and 10 CPU cores, the Helio X20 and its successors were all less powerful. Using only two large cores and eight low-power cores, four of which had low clock speeds, the chipset lacked the shock of rival flagship processors. While not a good look for the flagship-tire chipset, the X20 has found a home on affordable phones from Doogie, Elephone, LeEco, Sharp, Xiaomi and many more.

Mediatek continues this concept with the 2017 Helio X30, which includes a new PowerVR GPU and Tensilica DSP designed to compete with the best in the business. But poor performance failed to entice customers – Meizu was MediaTek’s only client for the X30. In fact, the 10-core Helio X lineup was so bad for business that MediaTek dropped out of the flagship chip space year after year, recently returning with the Powerhouse Dimension 9000.

Security issues for Exynos

Now for a different kind of spectacular failure. Samsung’s Exynos 4210 and 4412 have been the victims of root permission exploits that were seemingly so “easy” that it was packaged into a one-click application. Talk about poor security.

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of root access, it gives a user or malicious application access to all low-level files of the Android OS, allowing them to install apps at will and access sensitive files. Deliberately rooting your phone was all the rage in 2012, as it allows for ROM switching applications with enhanced capabilities, so one-click-exploitation was a boon for some users. However, it does create a significant security risk for others, especially if the malware is exploited.

See also: Specter and meltdown CPU exploitation is explained

Worryingly, the Exynos 4210 and 4412 have driven several popular handsets, including Samsung’s Galaxy S2, Galaxy S3, and Galaxy Note 2 flagships. On top of that, millions of customers were at risk. Samsung acknowledged the problem and sent patches to the affected devices, but normal carrier update delays dragged the process down.

Fortunately, routing is less popular than ever, and chipsets are increasingly secure and difficult to absorb. However, Samsung’s misstep was far from the security vulnerability of the last major chipset – 2018’s meltdown and specter exploitation affected arm-based mobile chipsets as well as PC components from AMD and Intel.

Apple’s “planned obsolescence”

Apple’s bionic processors have been industry-leading for years now, but even the iPhone has not escaped the processor controversy. In 2017, Apple acknowledged that it was reversing the functionality of older iPhone models to combat the effects of aging batteries. Older, worn-out lithium-ion batteries can become unstable and suffer from low voltage, which can cause the phone to reboot or shut down. By reducing processor performance, Apple reduces power consumption and avoids shutdown problems. So in some sense, Apple is doing its customers a favor.

In 2016, Apple pushed an update to all its phones to flip the throttling switch in the situation mentioned above. While some acknowledge Apple’s good intentions, a commotion ensued because the throttling took place in secret. It takes third party research to uncover that iPhones have finally stopped performing at the level expected and paid by consumers. Either way, it was a pretty bad look for a company that sells phones, in part, based on industry-leading performance and that gives a lot of ammunition to “planned obsolete” conspiracy theorists.

Apple has introduced a low-cost battery replacement program to resolve disputes, even for customers who are out of warranty. The next iOS 11.3 update also has the option to turn off this generously dubbed “Peak Performance”. Nevertheless, Apple is still throttling the functionality of older iPhones after reaching a certain age.

Read more: GPU vs. CPU – What’s the Difference?

Disrespectful mention

This is for our top five, but several other chipsets fail in mind. Here’s a roundup of some of the more notable ones:

• Qualcomm’s choice of Snapdragon 835 to launch its Windows on Arm initiative was a low-level disaster. Mobile SoC failed to deliver the performance needed for a desktop environment – see Lenovo Mixx 630 – which is deprived of chip battery and networking benefits. In fact, even Qualcomm’s latest Snapdragon 8xc Gen 3 still seems a long way off from industry leaders.
• While it did offer some impressive gaming chops, Nvidia’s Tegra 4 was disappointing after several years of decent smartphone chipsets. It wasn’t such a bad chip – the Tegra 4 provides a range of tablet power. Nevertheless, without a competitive modem setup, Nvidia’s offer could not keep pace with its competitors’ increasingly advanced integration solutions. The Tegra 4i revision was too low-powered to captivate the mobile crowd, leaving the Tegra 3 as a high-point for Nvidia’s smartphone chipset.
• Did you know that Xiaomi phones also worked on SoC development? Its Serge S1 was made from eight low-power Cortex-A 53 CPU cores, an intermediate Mali-T860 MP4 GPU and an older 28nm HPC process. It only appeared on the Chinese-exclusive Xiaomi Mi 5c, so rarely did a splash. The Serge S1 is a fairly affordable processor, but we haven’t seen anything better than Xiamoi’s since its limited 2017 debut.
• Speaking of the 53 processors in the octa-core Cortex, remember when they jumped into the budget market? By the grace of God, they are gone, but after Qualcomm and Samsung (mostly) went ahead, MediaTek stubbornly kept this arrangement for years. See the complete Helio P Series up to 2019 P35 and 2020 Helio G25 and G35 as final examples. While these chips may be affordable, we’ve seen significant performance jumps in the more affordable smartphone segment as vendors have begun to implement a few larger cores.

Next up: Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 vs Exynos 2200 vs Dimension 9000

Of course, lots of other chipsets have been up and down over the years. Samsung’s constant tug-of-war between Exynos and Snapdragon, for example, is another big issue that deserves an article.

Have we missed the failure of your biggest smartphone processor? Let us know in the comments below.