Qualcomm’s first processor designed specifically for Windows on ARM computers is coming this year. But the upcoming Qualcomm Snapdragon 850 is basically an overclocked and slightly modified version of the Snapdragon 845 chip used in smartphones. Qualcomm says it should offer a 30 percent performance boost over the Snapdragon 835 chip used in the HP Envy x2, Asus NovaGo, and Lenovo Miix 630, but the company may have a much more powerful solution on the way.

According to a report from WinFuture, Qualcomm is already working on a Snapdragon 1000 chip set to be unveiled later this year.

While there aren’t a lot of details about what to expect in terms of performance, the new chip is said to have a 12 watt TDP, which is nearly twice the 6.5 watt max TDP for the Snapdragon 850.

In other words, the Snapdragon 850 won’t be bound by the same thermal constraints as most of Qualcomm’s other chips, which makes sense since it’s not designed to be used in tight spaces like smartphones and ultrathin tablets. Instead, it’s designed for laptops and 2-in-1 tablets.

Intel’s Core U-series processors, by comparison, are usually 15 watt processors.

Doubling the TDP will probably bring big performance gains to the upcoming chips, but I can’t help wonder if they’ll eat into two of the advantages ARM-based devices typically have over Intel-powered machines: longer battery life and thinner, fanless designs.

That said, the new chips will almost certainly continue to have integrated 4G LTE modems and other features that could help set computers with Snapdragon chips apart. And hopefully the higher-power chips will be better equipped for emulating x86 architecture when running applications that haven’t been ported to run natively on ARM.

WinFuture reports that Asus is already working on a device with a Snapdragon 1000 processor, a 2K display, and WiGig support.

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign


Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Subscribe to Liliputing via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,543 other subscribers

16 replies on “Report: Qualcomm Snapdragon 1000 could be a 12 watt processor for Windows 10 computers”

  1. “Intel’s Core U-series processors, by comparison, are usually 15 watt processors.”

    The debate would be worth having, at least with these points, if the performance between ARM and x86 was anywhere near the same. Core U-Series processors are in an unreachable league for Snapdragon chips in terms of raw performance.

    Snapdragon chips for Windows laptops need to be compared to Pentium/Celeron chips, if not Atoms.

    Funnily enough, Qualcomm doesn’t like to draw that comparison: their Windows-bound chips are sold like high-end processors, but they perform like entry-level ones.

  2. Are they still planning on producing lower TDP SoCs? Like the article says, this new chip is starting to throw away some of the advantages of using ARM (not that the current 3 WoA devices are great examples of these advantages).

    1. This CPU is specifically designed for laptop market thus higher TDP. This does not affect product lines for smartphones and smart watches.

      1. I meant lower TDP SoCs for Windows devices. This new chip seems like it’d also be restricted to “larger” devices like Intel’s Core chips.

  3. Now they put more TDP to prove once again ARM is inferior to x86 processors. ARM gets power hungry than x86 at the same time when x86 get less TDP and more CPU cores. And actually x86 already at the equality of cpu cores on one chip. ARM can not compete with x86 if ARM will go the way of x86 they it would be overtaken by another cpu architecture. It would be doom for ARM. And Apple one of the company which behind all of this fuss will stuck again with obsolute hardware like PowerPC era, but ofc they will rip more money from that. The only way to survive for ARM is the way of different approuch to computing, the way they do that before. “Why break what isn’t broken?!”

    1. I often joke the ARM is the turbocharged small displacement engine of computing. Efficient at cruise and idle, but uses just as much gas as a naturally aspirated, bigger engine in high performance scenarios.

    2. Arm is outselling x86 chips every year thanks to mobile phones and tablets

  4. “Qualcomm’s first processor designed specifically for Windows on ARM”

    “an overclocked and slightly modified version of the Snapdragon 845 chip”

    More marketing BS. You can’t have both of the above things, Qualcomm. Pick one.

    1. Those 2 lines are referring to 2 separate CPUs. The former is referring to the 1000, the latter is referring to the 850.

      That said, the article is quite confusingly written.

  5. Why is it so difficult for intel/AMD to integrate “4G LTE modems and other features” into their processors? Seems like basic hardware to me!

    1. It’s not a question of hardware, but a question of patents. Qualcomm owns a bunch of modem-related patents, and are happy to sue anyone that doesn’t pay them handsomely for it.

      1. All required patents are not blocked for companies to license. This is protected by the law. There are a number of companies that share the pool of patents.

    2. In an interesting twist, both Intel and Qualcomm supply
      Apple with radio chips for iPhones. Tests have shown the Intel
      radio chips to be inferior in several respects to Qualcomm’s.
      The mfrs’ chips go into phones associated with different carriers
      (there’s no overlap in carriers between Intel and Qualcomm’s
      chips, so the carriers with Intel chips are disadvantaged).

    3. They haven’t got the IP,(hence cost) they’ve started later (hence performance), and they’re late on due size(hence cost and performance).
      It’ll be three years before they catch up if they ever do.

    4. Intel is already pretty far along in 5G development, and they’ve already licensed Qualcomm’s 4G tech. Intel (Atom?) x64 connected PCs are supposed to be somewhere in the pipeline, but Intel has been oddly quiet about them. That’s probably because 8th gen Core i* CPUs are already hitting 15 hours of battery life, while blowing ARM out of the water in performance.

Comments are closed.