Are mtk cpus really so shitty or is it just a meme from the past?

File: QualcommBTFO.png (309KB, 1440x1920px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1440x1920px

>>52629861
It's a shitty meme.

>>52629861
They're pretty good imo
Dirt cheap and performance is crazy for the price

>>52629861
They jack up their benchmark scores by putting more cores than apps support.

Like AMD and the MOAR CORES approach, but they do have lower power consumption and heat output.

The phones however get awful third party firmware support, mainly because they are used in cheap chink shitphones, that arrive on the market with obsolete 4.x/5.0 android and are never updated beyond that. There are still chink phones selling with android 3.x.

File: Screenshot_2016-01-26-18-00-53-1.png (546KB, 1181x1029px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1181x1029px

>>52630186
>released with outdated android

>>52629861
Manipulated benchmarks.

Shit battery life.

Shit thermals with throttling kicking in almost immediately.

Horrible driver support.

Every document protected by NDA.


It's pretty much the WORST company in the smartphone SoC space.

>>52629861

They're only worth considering up to roughly the $200 range in phones. They deliver acceptable performance for the price but their process nodes are well behind Qualcomm/Samsung/TSMC/Intel so their energy efficiency (and therefore thermal radiation) is relatively terrible. >>52630087
links a performance evaluation to Qualcomm's equivalent offering, the Snapdragon 615, which shows the Mediatek can move some code but like the 808/810 the 615 is a poorly contained dumpsterfire of a SoC.

I wouldn't consider a Mediatek SoC in a battery-dependent device because of the poor efficiency but I would for a small ARM computer, like a Pi-class device.