[Geekerwan] Xiaomi's self-developed Xuanjie O1 chip in-depth evaluation: close to 8 Elite!

[-]

straightdge@reddit

Why is there no English review channels of such quality? Most review channels in English rehash the same garbage. I wonder if Anandtech still exists now.

[-]

SerialLewder@reddit

Makes me wonder what's going on with Google's Tensor

[-]

Blackadder18@reddit

From my understanding a good portion of their issues simply come from using Samsung Foundry instead of TSMC. It just isn't anywhere near as good and the results speak for themselves.

They're moving to TSMC this year apparently, so we shall see if their chips are less uh, bad, then they have been.

[-]

Warm-Cartographer@reddit

This isn't true, Exynos 2400 is within 10% of 8G3 and D9300 which use same node as Tensor G4.

G4 is worse than even Kirin which use SMIC 7nm.

[-]

UseSwimming8928@reddit

2400 is also shit at low power. Under 3.5w its cpu is worse than 8+g1, and even the tensor g4 under 3w.

[-]

Warm-Cartographer@reddit

Yes due to Samsung node, 8+ gen 1 stil use Tsmc 4nm which is superior to Samsung 4lpp. That's why Samsung still use lot A520 in E2400, they sacrifice efficiency to get better battery life.

[-]

UseSwimming8928@reddit

So its trash. Even worse than tensor.

[-]

Warm-Cartographer@reddit

You just nitpick one aspect and generalise.

E2400 has best RT of all soc in its generation, way better than 8 gen 3 and D9300 I can use 3dmark solar bay ang generalise E2400 is best soc and 8 gen 3 is trash, but deep down I know it's not.

Thats multicore efficiency, at lower power you won't use 8-10 cores that's why I told you they chooe 4xA520 when phone do low power task like Video playback, music playback etc it use those low cores instead of big ones.

You can see that translate to battery life, look at S24 battery life in Gsmarena test, it beat both S23 ( 8 gen 2) and pixel 9 (if you divide by battery capacity due to pixel 9 having bigger battery)

[-]

UseSwimming8928@reddit

So much defending for some trash.

[-]

UGMadness@reddit

Really makes one wonder what if Huawei were allowed to keep using TSMC. They amount of innovations they’ve managed to cram into chips using the same SMIC 7nm process again and again is nothing short of remarkable.

[-]

DerpSenpai@reddit

If Huawei was allowed to use TSMC, Windows on ARM would fly off the shelves with Huawei chips on Huawei PCs. Chinese adoption would be a cascade within the industry for support and then to the west.

I wouldn't be too suprised to see Xiaomi's chip in a Windows PC within 2-3 years time. They already are doing a tablet with it but Android, a matter of time for Windows to come to this space.

[-]

joelypolly@reddit

For a lot of the buyers gaming needs to be better supported in Windows on ARM. I think once they have that cracked the Chinese OEMs will start leaning much more heavily into ARM on PC.

[-]

zdy132@reddit

Android 16 is supporting a desktop mode based on Samsung DeX.

I wish to see the return of Linux on DeX, and maybe it would be truly the year of Linux, in the form of being a desktop OS on Android phones.

[-]

ezkailez@reddit

Their performance are good? I didn't look into it and just assumed they're stuck on the same level of performance since they're always on 7nm

[-]

zdy132@reddit

Apprantly it's on par with 8G1+, which is on a TSMC 4 nm node.

Clawing out enough performance and efficiency to compete with 4 nm nodes on 7 nm is definitely some impressive feat.

[-]

ezkailez@reddit

Wow, while it's not the best it's still much faster than current mid range phones

[-]

zdy132@reddit

And they've been trying to make do with their own Harmony OS, using the vertical integration to further stretch the performance.

IDK how well that's been going for them, but still props to them for staying relevant while being cut off from the world's tech supply.

[-]

Front_Expression_367@reddit

Recently Notebookcheck has reviewed a new (?) Kirin chip within a Huawel tablet that got close to Snapdragon 8s Gen 3 in CPU, although it does have 12 cores of CPU and its GPU sucks still. But it was also seemingly still made on SMIC 7nm, and the overall consumption seems equal to Snapdragon 8s Gen 3, so it is still impressive.

[-]

plantsandramen@reddit

Within 10% compared in what measurements? There's a lot of ways to look at an soc performance.

[-]

Warm-Cartographer@reddit

Same metric used in this thread, Geekerwan curves.

https://socpk.com/cpucurve/gb6/

You can visit that link top left click to unselect all soc then Choose 8 Gen3, D9300 and E2400 to see their curves.

[-]

plantsandramen@reddit

Understood, thank you

[-]

Warm-Cartographer@reddit

This isn't true, Exynos 2400 is within 10% of 8G3 and D9300 which use same node as Tensor G4.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit

Might want to delete this comment, replied twice and is the comment with less stuff in it.

[-]

xternocleidomastoide@reddit

It's a relatively small team and not a priority within google.

Pixel is a weird unit within google.

[-]

zdy132@reddit

Probably same stuff Apple's siri team is going through.

[-]

Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit

Isn't Siri inhibited by the fact that you need access to more user data to train your AI better? Google does make a much better assistant. But one thing I noticed from switching from iPhone to Android is that Siri seems to do voice recognition much better for people with noticable accents and non English names compared to Google.

[-]

DerpSenpai@reddit

Apple has all the user data it needs to do it

[-]

Silent-Selection8161@reddit

Google's hardware is bad

[-]

jacktherippah123@reddit

Makes me wonder what Samsung could do with TSMC N3E.

[-]

uKnowIsOver@reddit

Be 15-20% worse than Snapdragon as they have always been even when they both used the same node.

[-]

UseSwimming8928@reddit

Whose test?

[-]

-protonsandneutrons-@reddit

Wow, a hell of a first 3nm mobile SoC, especially to significantly beat out MediaTek (!) on nT perf / W and 1T perf / W on the same node and same IP. Geekerwan notes this is likely due to Xiaomi's superior back-end design in implementing the X925 IP.

The graph at 9:35 is wild: O1's 3.9 GHz X925 has a noticeably higher perf / W than MT's 3.6 GHz X925. Damn good engineering by Xiaomi.

And now this 3.9 GHz X925 outpaces the Oryon V2 in 1T perf & perf / W?! Oryon V2 only ekes out a slight win in fp under 5W, but in every other head-to-head, the X925 is higher perf and lower power (!).

//

Then the X725: I forgot MediaTek didn't use it in the D9400. The X725 seemed to be a swing & miss by Arm, but here is Xiaomi dropping a bomb: the X725 has a higher perf / W than Apple's A18 Pro E-cores?! Though there is no curve for Apple's E-core, at least at \~0.8W, the A725-L and A725M both have it beat.

It also begs the question why MediaTek chose the X4 as middle cores, and not the far superior X725: in performance and power, the X725 soundly beats the X4, Oryon-M, Apple E-core, A720, etc. at the sub <2.5W range.

Well done, Xiaomi: scheduling, clocks, layout, etc. are not easy to get on the first: see Samsung Exynos (!), though admittedly a low bar.

Plain that multiple implementations of the same IP can still be interesting. The GPU efficiency is disappointing, but Geekerwan notes the lack of SLC is hampering it.

//

My only wish is for more data and a little table to crunch the numbers. Other random conclusions:

Samsung, if you have a good node or are willing to use a good node, a self-developed SoC can be superior to Qualcomm & MediaTek. Exynos wouldn't have this reputation without unforced errors.
MediaTek, if you implement Arm IP worse than Xiaomi, what are you really accomplishing for us?
Qualcomm's battery life is still a great consumer win, but Xiaomi has made a huge leap to very competently make its own flagship SoCs with an in-house ISP, in-house NPU, and very strong efficiency: it will be very hard for a smartphone maker to give up that advantage, not unlike Apple.

[-]

excaliflop@reddit

Wow, a hell of a first 3nm mobile SoC, especially to significantly beat out MediaTek (!) on nT perf / W and 1T perf / W on the same node and same IP. Geekerwan notes this is likely due to Xiaomi's superior back-end design in implementing the X925 IP.

Very good example of how important design is. Exynos has been riddled with design flaws for years and being able to outperform Mediatek for your first attempt is an impressive feat

[-]

DerpSenpai@reddit

Exynos has been fine design wise, the issue is node being used

[-]

excaliflop@reddit

Very far from the truth. Read Anandtechs reviews for past references and from Geekerwan we know that the Exynos 2400 has DVFS, scheduling issues and exhibits the same odd throttling behaviour (throttling when a fan is blasted on the SoC) observed on Exynos 2100 by Andrei was recorded during their efficiency testing as well. A Snapdragon or Mediatek SoC on the same node would be more efficient than an Exynos

The unique RDNA based Xclipse GPU is great though and partially why I don't want them to give up on Exynos

[-]

UseSwimming8928@reddit

How much better was the 888 and 8g1 compared to exynos counterparts?

[-]

Warm-Cartographer@reddit

I find Samsung cluster choice better than both Xiaomi and Mediatek, 1 x X925 2x A725 5x A725 2x A520

Having more A725 instead of X4 or X925 means more efficiency cpu.

So don't be suprised when E2500 Achieve same efficiency even with worse node.

[-]

Vince789@reddit

I'm very interested to see teh E2500 & Samsung's 3nm

Xiaomi's config is:

2x X925 @ 3.9 Ghz
4x A725 @ 3.4 Ghz (optimized for higher clocks)
2x A725 @ 1.9 Ghz (optimized for lower clocks)
2x A520 @ 1.8 Ghz

Samsung's config for the Exynos 2400 is:

1x X4 @ 3.2 GHz
2x A720 @ 2.9 GHz (optimized for higher clocks)
3x A720 @ 2.6 GHz (optimized for mid clocks)
4x A520 @ 2.0 GHz

Assuming the E2500's A725 have the same approach as the E2400, we might see 2x A725 around 3-3.4GHz & 5x A725 around 2.7-3GHz

Hence Samsung's approach is different to Xiaomi's, Samsung doesn't have a 2x A725 cluster optimised for low clocks, which makes the comparison harder to predict

Also IMO an additional X925 shouldn't necessarily make efficiency worse

Geekerwan's testing showed the X925 has better perf/w above ~1.7W for INT and ~2.2W for FP

The A725 @ 2.7-3GHz is likely to be close or maybe above ~1.7-2.2W, thus close/into the area where X925 has a perf/w advantage

For what its worth, Arm's 2025 CSS for Client config also has 2x X925:

2x X925
4x A725
2x A520

[-]

Fritzkier@reddit

considering the chip itself is also physically smaller, it's a design win overall.

[-]

Zero3020@reddit

It's smaller because it doesn't have a modem which ends up hurting its batter life.

[-]

Fritzkier@reddit

oh yeah you're right. I should compare it to the A18 Pro size instead since both don't have an integrated modem.

[-]

Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit

Its larger

[-]

Geddagod@reddit

The graph at 9:35 is wild: O1's 3.9 GHz X925 has a noticeably higher perf / W than MT's 3.6 GHz X925. Damn good engineering by Xiaomi.

Tbh the 1T perf/W curves don't appear to be that different, the 2 graphs are pretty small but it appears to be like a 10% difference at most at the high end of the curve.

Also something interesting is that Xiaomi's X925 appears to be both smaller and higher clocking than Mediatek's implementation, which is quite wild.

And now Xiaomi's 3.9 GHz X925 outpaces the Oryon V2 in 1T perf & perf / W?! Oryon V2 only ekes out a win in fp under 5W, but in every other head-to-head, Xiaomi's X925 is higher perf and lower power (!) vs Oryon V2.

Not a great look for Qcomm's custom cores ngl.

It also appears to me as if Qcomm's cores don't have any distinct area advantage either over this core, no matter what level one looks at it.

[-]

-protonsandneutrons-@reddit

Tbh the 1T perf/W curves don't appear to be that different, the 2 graphs are pretty small but it appears to be like a 10% difference at most at the high end of the curve.

IMHO, I would've expected a 3.9 GHz X925 to consume a lot more power vs a 3.6 GHz X925 (power w/ square of voltage, to get that 8% clock increase), but it actually consumes noticeably less is a shock.

+10% perf / W on the same node and same IP and with a +8% clock bump--to me--is significant. I agree absolutely it's not much, but relatively, it seems bigger than ever.

Now, I should be frank: Geekerwan isn't actually measuring core power, but rather "mainboard power", per Google Translation of his axis, so some of this is muddier since the phones' mainboards are a little different (and RAM, as well.

//

Also something interesting is that Xiaomi's X925 appears to be both smaller and higher clocking than Mediatek's implementation, which is quite wild.

I didn't see the sizes compared, but that would be more impressive. Denser libraries? IIRC, Arm lets you cut out minor things, but I've never thought they were a large part of the core area.

Not a great look for Qcomm's custom cores ngl.

It also appears to me as if Qcomm's cores don't have any distinct area advantage either over this core, no matter what level one looks at it.

Yeah, that is a surprising to me, too, especially as Qualcomm made significant improvements with Oryon V2. This is about as like-for-like comparison we'll ever get. For Xiaomi, a smartphone manufacturer that has never shipped a major flagship mobile SoC, to bring a TSMC N3E SoC nearly as good in 1T perf and better in 1T perf / W was not on my 2025 bingo card.

I didn't even know this SoC existed until a few days ago lol.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit

IMHO, I would've expected a 3.9 GHz X925 to consume a lot more power vs a 3.6 GHz X925 (power w/ square of voltage, to get that 8% clock increase), but it actually consumes noticeably less is a shock.

+10% perf / W on the same node and same IP and with a +8% clock bump--to me--is significant. I agree absolutely it's not much, but relatively, it seems bigger than ever.

Fair enough

Now, I should be frank: Geekerwan isn't actually measuring core power, but rather "mainboard power", per Google Translation of his axis, so some of this is muddier since the phones' mainboards are a little different (and RAM, as well.

Good point.

IMO this makes looking at the power effeciency of the E-cores pretty hard, since small variances in mobo power make up a larger % difference than they do in larger core comparisons.

I didn't see the sizes compared, but that would be more impressive. Denser libraries? IIRC, Arm lets you cut out minor things, but I've never thought they were a large part of the core area.

I usually just yoink the die shots for the chips and use paint to pixel measure my own area estimations lol. I do not like how Geekerwan includes power gate stripes in his area calculations.

The X925 in this CPU is larger by \~15-20% than the one in the Mediatek, not enough to be margin of error I think. Could just be a physical layout difference, one can note obvious differences even when comparing just the placement of L2 SRAM arrays and macro stuff like that.

For Xiaomi, a smartphone manufacturer that has never shipped a major flagship mobile SoC, to bring a TSMC N3E SoC nearly as good in 1T perf and better in 1T perf / W than Oryon V2--which we've waited nearly a half decade for--was not on my 2025 bingo card.

I agree, very surprising.

I didn't even know this SoC existed until a few days ago lol.

Same, but I think you follow the ARM stuff much more closely than I do, so I would imagine this statement means more coming from you than me lol.

[-]

Swaggerlilyjohnson@reddit

MediaTek, if you implement Arm IP worse than Xiaomi, what are you really accomplishing for us?

This is the biggest problem for them. I see lots of people saying this is a problem for qualcomm but they have a strong brand (Which they actually damaged with the laptop chips imo)

This is actually the biggest problem for mediatek.imagine if Xiaomi just goes "oh damn this went super well" and starts implementing a bunch of stock arm cores better than mediatek does. This would be a serious problem for them pretty quickly.

It might not just be Xiaomi phones using using those lower end chips they might try to expand to other brands to replace mediatek in the budget area.

[-]

Warm-Cartographer@reddit

Mtk using of 4 x X4 has always been for Benchmarking purpose than practical.

A720/725 is real deal, especially for gamers and power users, even below 2W those core give you enough perfomance to play even cpu heavy games like Cyberpunk2077.

[-]

DevastatorTNT@reddit

This is a very strong showing, amazing for a first of its kind product. Hopefully the phone(s) it's put in can deliver as well

Also, can't help but wonder... How does mediatek lose so bad core vs core?

[-]

EloquentPinguin@reddit

The 9400 made it look like Qualcomm managed to edge out a clear win with Oryon V2 over Blackhawk, but the Xring has me really shocked and thinking that something just went wrong for MediaTek.

MediaTek seemed to have it all figured out with their energy efficient caches and strong performance but the Xring really closes the gap to the 8 Elite which MediaTek failed to do.

[-]

Vince789@reddit

I hope this teaches more people that there's still a HUGE engineering effort involved in designing custom AP SoCs even if stock Arm CPU/GPU cores (IP license) are used (unless Arm's CSS license is used)

Arm also said so themselves when they started their push for Compute Subsystems (CSS)

Hopefully we see Xiaomi continue with their own SoCs, it's great to have additional data points to see how well MediaTek are performing

And I'm interested to see if we'll see one of the major SoC vendors adopt Arm's CSS license (where Arm themselves design the compute platform/implementation)

[-]

RZ_Domain@reddit

Do people actually think SoCs with stock cores are easy to implement? I remember when Samsung & Instrinsity made by far the fastest Cortex A8 core with Hummingbird.

[-]

iDontSeedMyTorrents@reddit

Yes, they do, and it's an exceedingly common misconception.

[-]

Vince789@reddit

It's not bad here on r/hardware

But on /r/Android, YouTube, Twitter I've seen heaps of people saying things like what's the point it still uses stock Arm cores, why don't Sony/other OEMs make their own SoC, why did Google need Samsung to help design Tensor SoCs, ... etc

[-]

xternocleidomastoide@reddit

This SoC is also coming significantly later than MDTK's 9400 (or the SD Elite). So it's within the expected margin of improvement.

[-]

No-Individual8449@reddit

concerned for the Custom ROMs community around cheaper Xiaomi devices

[-]

Swaggerlilyjohnson@reddit

The explanation about backend implementation of arm core architectures was nice I always wondered why Arm cores weren't more commoditized (Why couldn't every phone company using mediatek just have a motorla chip or a oppo chip etc) but now i get it.

This SOC is much better than i thought it would be its not far behind in gpu and its very competitive with the 8 elite in cpu very impressive.

It also appears that they are looking to jump up to laptops and tablets with this (The big gpu and the external modem are a big tell imo)

[-]

mr_tolkien@reddit

Man I'd love if we could get one of those devices (pocketable and insanely powerful) with an actual OS (Linux ideally).

With Displayport Alt Mode they could switch between smartphones and almost workstation. For things like web dev they're more than capable enough already.

[-]

reddit_user42252@reddit

Lets see. New chinese chip. Most posters are just fawning over it and attacking the competition. Suspicious? hell yeah.

[-]

Bvllish@reddit

This isn't team sports buddy. It's a real physical chip in people's phones with real verifiable performance.

[-]

Exist50@reddit

If you have any data to suggest these results are anything other than genuine, then by all means post it.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit

Tf?

The results speak for themselves. It's not attacking the competition as much as it is comparing their chip to the competition. And their chip compares very well to the competition.

[-]

Successful-Boat-1193@reddit

Deep dive on Xiaomi silicon empire https://www.nomadsemi.com/p/inside-xiaomis-silicon-empire

[-]

zdy132@reddit

Xiaomi absolutely cooked with this one. CPU on par with 8Elite and a18 pro, GPU performance between these two as well. Glad to see another competitor into the phone SOC market after MTK.

The biggest shortcoming is the MTK baseband, which is likely the least efficient among the other three. But a 9:30 battery life is still not too bad in Geekerwan's benchmark.

I do wonder, Huawei was also in this position years ago with their Kirin 9000. Would Xiaomi be sanctioned as well? Guess we will have to wait and see.

[-]