It's becoming increasingly more obvious that the public perception of the Nvidia Tegra brand has skyrocketed. This is rightly so, especially considering the performance gains that devices outfitted with the Tegra chipset see. The Tegra line is hardly the best available on the market, but it certainly is popular.
According to the CMO of Qualcomm, Anand Chandrasekher, consumers could do much better with their latest chipsets. Of course, Chandrasekher isn't leaving his claims up to words alone, in an exclusive interview he's revealed what he calls "straight facts," that prove why Qualcomm is better. If you ask me though, the facts have yet to be backed by real world evidence.
I'm not against Qualcomm, nor am I for Nvidia, I'm just skeptical when it comes to a Chief Marketing Officer claiming "my company is better."
During the interview, with TechPulse 360, Chandrasekher sure had a lot to say.
"We clean Tegra 4â€²s clock. There's nothing in Tegra 4 that we looked at, and that looks interesting. Tegra 4 frankly, looks a lot like what we already have in S4 Pro."
According to Chandrasekher the Snapdragon S4 Pro is "better, [and] faster" than the Tegra 3, which is readily available to consumers.
"On benchmarks published by Anantech, S4 Pro is twice as fast than the fastest Tegra processor commercially available [Tegra 3]."
He also claims that the Tegra 4, which is not shipping commercially yet, is beat out by the Snapdragon 600.
"We believe our Snapdragon 600 outperforms Nvidia's Tegra 4. And we believe our Snapdragon 800 completely outstrips it and puts a new benchmark in place."
Last year, the Tegra 3 saw quite a bit of success after being included in a large selection of Android tablets. Chandrasekher believes that success model is going to change over the course of this year, thanks to Qualcomm's newest Snapdragon 600 and 800 chipsets.
"Yes, they [Nvidia] had the perception [of superior graphics] help them for some time, and that helped them for some tablet wins. I think that would change. The world is increasingly becoming aware that what we have in CPUs and graphics is beyond what anybody has. So usually that technical awareness happens at the OEMs and that takes a while for products to emerge..."
Undoubtedly, rational consumers will require a more real world evidence, of a performance boost, than the words of a naysaying Chief Marketing Officer. I'm sure more benchmarks will crop up soon, and we'll see the real validity of Chandrasekher's claims. In the short term, performance may not be such an issue, considering the Tegra 4 has yet to ship commercially. At this time, we don't actually know when consumers will be able to get their hands on a Tegra 4 device.
It's hard to argue with Chandrasekher when he makes such a good case for his point, it's even harder when he closes the interview with a comment like this:
"Empirically, we completely beat them [Nvidia] on graphics performance!"
Just in case you want to take a look at Chandrasekher's minute long interview with TechPulse 360, I've included the video below.
What do you think of the points that Chandrasekher made? Is it enough to turn you off to a future Tegra 4 device? Would you rather see real benchmarking scores before making a decision between the two brands, or does it even matter?