Sony Switches to Qualcomm SoCs for the new A and ZX Walkmans

Sony rarely releases information about what SoCs or chips go into their devices. Obviously there is no obligation for Sony to do this, but it would be nice to have some insight into what powers the devices we use. Major news sites and blogs do not really focus much on such things, or if they do, it will not be a Sony device (unless it is an Xperia). So over the years I have tried to cover this topic. You can check some of the posts below:

What SoC is Sony using in the new A and ZX Walkmans? 

Sony V1 Integrated Processor: A deeper look 

New Sony Walkmans (NW-A100, NW-ZX500) use a Murata Wireless Chip

Mediatek MT2811, the new Bluetooth chip in Sony's Wireless headsets 

Sony does not view my blog as a major website, so trying to get interviews about any models is impossible. The only time Sony deems necessary to contact me is when I leak or post something they want removed. Oh joy.

Anyways, back to the subject of this post. For the new generation of the A and ZX Walkmans, Sony has switched to Qualcomm SoCs. This was discovered in the original post from a GFXbench listing, which listed the GPU model, the Adreno 702.

With a little research, the only chip this GPU was used in was the Qualcomm QCS2290. Unfortunately there was no NW-ZX700 benchmark on GFXbench, therefore we only had the Geekbench benchmark to work with. We knew the CPU cores (8) and the frequencies (1.8 and 2.0 Ghz), so using this information, I guessed the QCM4290/QCS4290, or the SM6115 (Snapdragon 662), as the possible SoCs in the new ZX.

Even after the announcement of the new ZX700, Sony did not mention what SoC was being used. But we got another break, Kunkoku on twitter posted a photo of the chips inside the new ZX700 and it was clearly visible what the SoC was, the Qualcomm QCS4290. So there we have it, the NW-A300 uses the Qualcomm QCS2290, and the NW-ZX700 uses the Qualcomm QCS4290. 

Well that was much simpler and easier than previously. I will point out the chips will be the QCS versions, since the QCM models have an integrated LTE modem, which is not really needed for a DAP.

Now let us take a closer look at the "new" chips. 

QCS2290

Starting off with the new A-Series SoC, Sony opted for the QCS2290, an entry model SoC as Qualcomm describes it. The chip is a customized 64-bit Arm Cortex A53 quad-core up to 2.0 Ghz, and this is exactly what we saw on the Geekbench result. The GPU is the new Adreno 702, and there is a dedicated DSP (Hexagon V66) on board the chip. The video support is 1080p30 decode for H.264/H.265/VP9, so I wonder if 60 FPS videos will have playback issues on the new A.

The memory support is LPDDR4x and LPDDR3, we will need to wait for a teardown to see what was used. The wireless chip is the Qualcomm WCN3950, which features WiFi a/b/g/n/ac (WiFi-5), Bluetooth 5.0, and FM. It is unfortunate there will be no LE Audio support in the future due to the Bluetooth being only 5.0.

An interesting note in the datasheet, the QCS2290 baseband chipset is pin-to-pin compatible with Qualcomm QCM4290/QCS4290, so technically Sony could have used the QCS4290 in the A-Series as well. I wonder if during development there were prototypes that used this faster chip and vice versa for the ZX700.

The QCS2290 is manufactured on a 11nm process, which offers "improved power performance" according to Qualcomm. I suspect this might be made by Samsung as they seem to offer a 11nm node. The previous NW-A100 SoC, NXP i.MX.8M.mini, used a 28nm process, which I suspect was from TSMC. Regardless who manufacturers the silicon, the 11nm process is definitely faster and more energy efficient, no doubt the one area where battery life increases came from.

For a quick comparison

NW-A300 - Customized 4x Cortex-A53 @ 2.0 Ghz

NW-A100 - 4x Cortex-A53 @ 1.8Ghz

The core count remains the same, but the new chip is faster thanks to the improved manufacturing process. And new 11nm process also helps improve he battery life. which has received a significant boost.

It is obvious the new QCS2290 is leaps and bounds ahead of the older i.MX.8M.mini Quad, as evident by the faster speed and improved battery life. But I wonder why Sony opted for the QCS2290 in the A, where as the NW-ZX700 is using the QCS4290. Both the new A and ZX used the same newly developed battery pack, so why not the same chip? Cost? or is the ZX700 a premium device and deserves a better SoC? Mystery indeed.

QCS4290

Moving to the larger and more expensive NW-ZX700, Sony decided to use the QCS4290. The SoC is a mid-tier chip, able to "deliver greater performance, better AI engine and improved connectivity". The improved connectivity is the support for WiFi-6, but I do not expect Sony to push out a firmware update to take advantage this. The Bluetooth version is 5.0, same as the QCS2290.

The chip uses the Kryo 260 CPU with 8 core from 1.8 to 2.0 Ghz per core. This does match the Geekbench results, which shows 4 cores at 1.8Ghz and 4 at 2.0 Ghz. The GPU is the Adreno 610. The DSP is a Hexagon 683. Video support is 1080p60 decode for H.264/H.265/VP9, so better than the QCS2290. Memory support is the same as the QCS2290. The QCS4290 is also manufactured on a 11nm process.

I wonder why Sony opted for the different CPU on the ZX700. Fundamentally the ZX is the same to the A with regards to the display resolution (HD) and same OS, Android 12. Of course the other audio components are very different on the ZX700, but would this require a different faster CPU? I would not think so. I guess Sony just wanted a faster more smoother experience on the more expensive ZX700. Perhaps there were complaints about the previous model's performance, and this is why the CPUs are now different on the new A and ZX.

Perhaps the Sony ZX700 engineer interview might shed some light on this. In the interview, Sony mentions they opted for a newer more efficient SoC which uses less power and in turn means less power supply noise. This as a result helps improve the audio quality. I am sure Sony with all of their years of experience in the audio field knows what they are talking about.

Further nn the interview the engineer states:

With the NW-ZX707, based on such knowledge, we have selected and installed an SoC that has the minimum performance necessary for listening to music, giving top priority to suppressing noise.

With that in mind, does the ZX700 really need the QCS4290? Why not just use the same QCS2290 from the A-Series? The QCS2290 SoC has 4 ARM Cortex-A53 cores, where as the QCS4290 uses 4 ARM Cortex-A73 and 4 ARM Cortex-A53 cores. I would imagine the quad core would be a bit more efficient than an octa core, less energy consumption would produce less power supply noise.

This same issue can be put to the LCD. In the interview Sony states an OLED screen would not be ideal as the power consumption would fluctuate as the screen would change from light and dark colours. This power fluctuation would increase the power supply noise and this is why Sony opted for an LCD.

I mean it makes sense, but would the extra noise be that much? If Sony wished to decrease the power use and fluctuations, why use a larger 5 inch screen on the new model? I feel the smaller 3.6 inch would have been more efficient? I am not an audio or electrical engineer, so I will believe Sony's claims.

Why the move to Qualcomm?

I am wondering if Sony approached other companies for SoCs, like Mediatek for instance. Sony did use Mediatek SoCs in their older Sony OS Walkmans, and currently employs Mediatek SoCs in their wireless headphones, so why not in the new Walkmans? Looking at some of the older Mediatek chips that are 4 and 8 core, it looks like most are on 28nm,. The Helio A Series on the otherhand, we have quad and octa core SoCs on a 12nm process with similar core architecture, Cortex-A53 and similar frequencies. Even the wireless connectivity is similar, WiFi-5 and Bluetooth 5.0 to the Qualcomm chips.

So why Qualcomm SoCs and not Mediatek? There could be many reasons. Availability of the chips could be one factor. I do not know when the new Walkman development began, but the first Geekbench results were in March 2022 for both models, so working prototypes/pre-production models were most likely present at this date. So the SoC would have to be available by then, and both the Helio A Series and Qualcomm's chips were already available, so perhaps availability is not the reason.

Another reason might be the architecture the chips are manufactured on. Qualcomm uses Samsung 11nm process, while the Mediatek chips use TSMC's 12nm FFC. If there is much of a power and performance difference between these 2, I have no idea, but I would imagine the difference is very small. So we can exclude this reason.

What about cost? That is difficult to calculate. I suspect the Qualcomm chips might cost more than the Mediatek chips, but it might depend on volume Sony would be buying. Sony does purchase a lot of Qualcomm smartphone SoCs, but it also buys A LOT of Mediatek chips for their wireless headphones and for their Bravia TVs. So I suspect Sony buys much more volume from Mediatek, so any discounts would be more likely here. So perhaps cost might be factor as the Walkman models might not be selling in such high numbers like in the years past.

The only logical reason I can think of is that Qualcomm offers a version of their chips without the 5G modem. I do not know if the Helio A Series can be bought without the integrated 5G modem, even if not, Sony could just disable it. Perhaps it is just easier to buy a chip without 5G.

Whatever the actual reason(s), Sony has decided to change to Qualcomm SoCs in this generation of Walkmans. I am not sure if Sony is planning on releasing any more Walkmans, like a new NW-A60, but if they do, I do not believe it would use a Qualcomm SoC, but stick to the Mediatek one in the A50.

As for Sony's future wireless models moving to Qualcomm SoCs, I do not think so. The WH-CH720N will be on Mediatek, the WH-CH520 will use Airoha (part of Mediatek), the WF-C500 successor is still unknown and the WI-OE610 will probably use Realtek, like the prototype model. I would think the new WF-1000XM5 will also stick with Mediatek, but that topic is for a future upcoming post.