Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 (+ Adreno 306) vs Snapdragon 400 (+ Adreno 305) comparison – performance, specs and benchmark results


Currently the fastest developing segment of the market, without any doubt, is the mid-range and entry level. Devices from this price range become more powerful with better build quality, better screens and one of the most popular SoCs from last year is the Snapdragon 400. This CPU can be found on several mid-range smartphones that sold very well and the best selling one was Moto G and Moto G2. This year, however, Qualcomm has released the direct successor to the chip – Snapdragon 410 with the most important feature – 64-bit support. This means better integration of the new Android Lollipop OS that runs on 64-bit instructions and easier transition to Android M and other versions of Android that will come in the foreseeable future.

But how the new Snapdragon 410 is better than its predecessor in real-life performance? First, let’s take a look at what the specs sheet of both has to offer.

QualcommSnapdragon 410
Process28 nm
Frequency1.36 GHz
ArchitectureARM Cortex-A53 / 64-bit support
GPUAdreno 306 / 450 MHz

QualcommSnapdragon 400
Process28 nm
Frequency1.2 GHz
GPUAdreno 305/ 450 MHz

Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 410 SoC integrates quad-core CPU with four Cortex-A53 cores based on ARM architecture, just like most of the SoCs released from the company for the last one year. The cores are ticking at 1.4 GHz and support 32-bit and 64-bit set of instructions. For all the graphics-related tasks, the SoC uses Adreno 306 GPU that can also be spotted on Snapdragon 415, Snapdragon 425 and some variants of the Snapdragon 400. It theory the GPU should offer similar performance to its predecessor, Adreno 305, but with reduced power consumption. To get more technical, the GPU can go up to 450 MHz with the support of OpenGL ES 1.x, 2.0, 3.0; Open CL 1.1e; RenderScript; Direct X 9.3. Moreover, the SoC is manufactured by 28 nm process meaning there’s no improvement in this department compared to last year’s Snapdragon 400.

As for the Snapdragon 400 SoC, things look almost the same with few important differences. For starters, the SoC is shipped in two variants – one with dual-core Krait 300 CPU ticking at 1.7 GHz or quad-core ARM Cortex-A7 CPU working at 1.6 GHz frequency. For this article, we’ve used the more widely spread variant with Cortex-A7 cores clocked at 1.2 GHz. The integrated GPU here is Adreno 305 that also ticks at 450 MHz and the manufacturing process remains 28 nm.

While things may look almost the same, in reality the little things in these SoCs make a difference. The absence of 64-bit support of the Snapdragon 400, as well as underclocked 4 CPU cores with older architecture design, make it obsolete. Interestingly enough, though, the Snapdragon 400 supports up to 1080p playback with H.265 (HEVC) while the Snapdragon 410 is listed to support up to 720p with H.265 (HEVC) according to Qualcomm’s official website. This, however, will not be a major issue to most users as this chip is integrated mostly on 720p screen smartphones and the H.265 encoder isn’t so widely spread for now.

The results of Snapdragon 410 were taken from Moto G3 (3rd Gen) and the results from Snapdragon 400 were taken from Moto G2 (2nd Gen).

BenchmarksQualcomm Snapdragon 410Qualcomm Snapdragon 400
Geekbench 3 (Multi-Core)1640 (+30%)1158
Vellamo 2 Metal675 (+76%)514
GFXBench 2.7 T-Rex (offscreen)5.3 (-9%)5.8
GFXBench 3 Manhattan (offscreen)1.7 (-6%)1.8
3D Mark Ice Unlimited4450 (-5%)4659
Pi – 10 mil. (lower is better)47.943 (+28%)67

It looks like the CPU of the Snapdragon 410 outperforms the Snapdragon 400 by a lot, but when it comes to GPU performance, the Snapdragon 410 drags behind by a few digits. This is a really interesting find and we can easily say that while Qualcomm has lowered the power consumption of the Adreno 306, this has also altered the performance of the core. Not as much, though.

Notifica di
Feedback in linea
Visualizza tutti i commenti
Joel Hayes
8 anni fa

It would be really helpful if knew more of the technical jargon involved with what I’m reading. I get the bulk of it, but as they say, “the devil’s in the details”, and all the minutia that I’m missing are amounting to a Mountain which must be reduced to a hill. In spite of my lack thereof, concerning the fine details, I nonetheless found this to be very helpful in gaining a more keen insight on the mystery that had plagued me until reading this. I thank you for your time and effort.