This article is approximately 3500 words long, with an expected reading time of 12 minutes.
I saw a tweet from a tech blogger on Weibo yesterday:
It’s really frustrating to see a mid-range SoC using the name of a flagship SoC. Qualcomm has done this more than once.
1. Early Qualcomm SoC Naming
In the early stages of the smartphone market, Qualcomm’s Snapdragon brand had a straightforward naming convention for its SoCs, typically starting with QSD, where Q stands for Qualcomm (Quality Communications) and SD is an abbreviation for Snapdragon. This was followed by a specific chip model number, such as the first Snapdragon processor, QSD8250.
As the number of chips developed increased, the QSD prefix became insufficient for distinguishing SoCs, leading Qualcomm to adopt other prefixes internally, such as MSM, SDM, SM, APQ, etc.
Note: MSM (Mobile Station Modem) refers to a mobile processor integrated with a communication baseband. APQ (Application Processor Qualcomm) refers to a mobile processor without an integrated communication baseband. The first digit indicates the presence of a CPU; Qualcomm’s mobile SoCs typically start with the digit 8. The second digit represents the supported network type: 0 indicates no baseband, 2 indicates Unicom network, 6 indicates telecom network, and 9 indicates full network support. The third and fourth digits indicate the generation of the chip; the larger the number, the better the chip’s performance.
These prefixes are essentially internal development names, which have the obvious advantage of facilitating internal differentiation of chip types. However, the downside is equally clear: consumers find it hard to remember so many names, making it difficult to form brand recognition for Qualcomm’s chip products.
Later, to better align with consumer market recognition, Qualcomm decided to give its chips a “marketing name” for easier identification, while keeping the names MSM, SDM, SM, and APQ for internal development use.
2. Early Naming Attempts by Qualcomm
After deciding to rename the chips, Qualcomm first planned its S series classification system. In November 2011, Qualcomm announced that the Snapdragon product line would be divided into four tiers: S1, S2, S3, and S4, with all SoCs categorized accordingly. This initially seemed like a reasonable plan, but upon further reflection, it had many issues.
First, this S series was merely a classification system, not a naming system.
This means that each SoC had two names: its own development name and an S series product classification name. This increased the cognitive burden on consumers; did every buyer of Snapdragon products need to remember both names?
Second, Qualcomm made two missteps that rendered this classification unsuccessful.
First, Qualcomm was eager to fit all its products into the S series framework, so they retroactively categorized previously released chips into this framework, causing confusion among consumers. For example, the MSM7230, launched at the end of 2009, was originally aimed at the mid-to-high-end smartphone market, but after the naming rules were published, Qualcomm categorized it as the S2 series; the MSM8260, launched in June 2010, was the processor used in the first Xiaomi phone, “Xiaomi 1,” but was categorized as the S3 series after the naming rules were published. This classification disrupted the positioning recognition consumers had already formed for SoCs, requiring them to relearn Qualcomm’s naming and classification.
Secondly, Qualcomm still did not abandon its original internal development names, continuing to use these names in promotional activities when releasing chips, undermining the S series classification method. I remember clearly that the APQ8064, a star chip released in 2011, was built on a 28nm process and was used in popular models like Xiaomi 2, HTC One, and Sony Xperia Z, outperforming Samsung’s Exynos 4412 at the time. Many consumers knew about this star SoC, but not everyone was aware that APQ8064 belonged to the S4 series.
Later, Qualcomm recognized its issues and decided to adjust its product line names. Starting at the end of 2012, they initiated a new naming plan with series 200, 400, 600, 700, and 800.
From that year onward, Qualcomm surpassed Exynos and began to dominate the smartphone SoC market.
3. Entering a Stable Naming Period
After the previous failure, Qualcomm realized that its chips needed a unified “product name” for easier consumer recognition.
Thus, starting in 2013, Qualcomm abandoned the original S series classification plan. Instead, they adopted a numerical series for unique naming of their chips, reflecting the name and tier classification through numbers, no longer using development names in public.
The Snapdragon 200 series belongs to entry-level chips, the Snapdragon 400 to low-end chips, the Snapdragon 600 and 700 to mid-range chips, and the Snapdragon 800 to high-end chips.
Honestly, when I saw this news, I felt like saying, “I have a thousand grass mud horses running in my heart.” I had just memorized the S series classification, and now they changed it? Well, I had to remember it anyway; after all, I consider myself a digital enthusiast.
Thus, Qualcomm entered a seven-year period of naming stability.
From 2013 to 2020, except for the Snapdragon 200 series, which was discontinued due to being too low-end, the other series were produced in an orderly manner. During these years, users formed a recognition of the Snapdragon brand.
For example, the flagship chips of the Snapdragon 800 series: Snapdragon 801, 805, 810, 820, 835, 845, 855, 865, were clearly much easier to remember than previous chips.
Originally, everyone thought that after the release of the Snapdragon 865 in 2019, the Snapdragon 875 would follow in 2020, but who knew Qualcomm would start to create confusion.
4. The Beginning of Naming Confusion
In 2020, the highly anticipated Snapdragon 888 was launched. Qualcomm believed that the name “888” would create a new consumer point, but Samsung’s 5nm process caused Qualcomm to stumble.
The Snapdragon 888 was Qualcomm’s most unsuccessful processor since the 810 and 820. It not only had issues with power leakage and overheating but also burned motherboards. After the Snapdragon 888’s problems, there was speculation about whether the next generation processor would be called Snapdragon 889. Who knew that Qualcomm not only failed to learn from its mistakes but also took a different path, attempting to rename to eliminate negative market impact and replan its product line.
Thus, in 2021, Qualcomm announced a new processor naming method, changing the original 400, 600, 700, and 800 series naming to a 4/6/7/8 naming method. The newly released flagship chip was named Snapdragon 8 generation 1 (Snapdragon 8 first generation), abbreviated as Snapdragon 8 gen1.
However, the Snapdragon 8 gen1 still used Samsung’s process, and the heating issue persisted. During 2020-2021, most users familiar with mobile chips preferred to buy the Snapdragon 870 (an overclocked version of the Snapdragon 865) or MediaTek’s Dimensity series rather than Snapdragon.
At this point, Qualcomm finally secured production capacity from TSMC, urgently having TSMC re-manufacture the 8 gen1 to resolve the heating issues caused by Samsung’s process. To differentiate from Samsung’s process, Qualcomm named the TSMC-produced Snapdragon 8 gen1 as “Snapdragon 8+ gen1.”
At that time, I couldn’t distinguish between these two processors, and friends who bought phones with the 8 gen1 really got the short end of the stick.
With the new naming method in place, in November 2022, Qualcomm released the Snapdragon 8 gen2. I thought the new naming method was acceptable since there was only one flagship processor each year, making it easy to remember.
However, not every consumer is willing to spend 3,000 to 4,000 on a flagship phone; many more consumers tend to buy mid-range and low-end devices that sell better than flagships.
In mid-2022, the Snapdragon 7 gen1 was released as Qualcomm’s mid-range chip, still using Samsung’s 4nm process, and its sales were mediocre. Qualcomm reflected that it was due to Samsung’s process. Thus, in mid-2023, Qualcomm lowered the core specifications of the Snapdragon 8+ gen1 and launched the Snapdragon 7+ gen2 chip based on TSMC’s process. This chip was indeed very powerful, being a strong contender in the mid-range market, nicknamed “Little 8+.” Qualcomm did not release a 7 gen2 but directly launched the 7+ gen2, following the naming method of Snapdragon 8 gen1 and Snapdragon 8+ gen1 by adding a +, hoping to indicate that this was based on TSMC’s process.
However, the reality was that aside from those familiar with digital products, other consumers buying mid-range devices were not sensitive to the name 7+ gen2, leading to unsatisfactory sales for the Snapdragon 7+ gen2. It was unexpected for a genuinely good mid-range processor to encounter such a cold reception.
After a series of setbacks, Qualcomm’s naming strategy began to darken.
5. Entering the Era of Naming Confusion
After the failure of the Snapdragon 7+ gen2 in mid-2023, at the end of 2023, Qualcomm directly launched the Snapdragon 7 gen3, leading people to believe it was an iterative version of the 7+ gen2. Although this SoC used the A715 architecture, its performance was roughly comparable to the Snapdragon 865 from 2019, making it impossible to compare with the 7+ gen2. Surprisingly, this SoC’s sales were much better than the 7+ gen2.
Qualcomm began to taste success. Most consumers were only interested in the leading numbers, such as Snapdragon 6, Snapdragon 7, and Snapdragon 8. As for the suffixes and specific architectures, many were unaware.
Thus, starting in 2023, Qualcomm began to put considerable effort into naming to profit in the mid-range market.
In 2024, Qualcomm launched the Snapdragon 7+ gen3, which was merely an enhanced version of the 7+ gen2 and not an iterative version, which many people were unaware of. The Snapdragon 7 gen4 released in 2025 was just an enhanced version of the 7 gen3, with performance inferior to the Snapdragon 7+ gen3 from 2024.
Therefore, the correct performance ranking of the Snapdragon 7 series mid-range SoCs should be:
7+gen3 > 7+gen2 > 7gen4 > 7gen3 > 7gen1
Is it confusing? I am confused too. But it doesn’t stop consumers from thinking that the latest is the best.
Even more frustrating is that in 2024, the latest flagship SoC “Snapdragon 8 gen4” was supposed to be released.
However, Qualcomm changed the name of the Snapdragon 8 series, announcing that the new flagship SoC would be called Snapdragon 8 Elite (abbreviated as 8E).
After the name change, Qualcomm repurposed the original “Snapdragon 8 gen” flagship name for mid-range SoCs, leading to a “hundred schools of thought” battle with the Snapdragon 7 series.
In 2024, Qualcomm launched “Snapdragon 8s gen3,” which at first glance seemed like an enhanced version of the flagship chip “Snapdragon 8 gen3.” In reality, it was a scaled-down version based on the Snapdragon 8 gen2 architecture, with overall performance comparable to the Snapdragon 7+gen3. However, to consumers, it sounded impressive because it was Snapdragon 8.
This year, they also released “Snapdragon 8s gen4,” which used the architecture of the 2024 Snapdragon 8 gen3. Therefore, if we rank the SoCs from the 7 and 8 series, it should be: 8 Elite > 8 gen3 > 8s gen4 > 8 gen2 > 7+gen3 > 8+gen1 > 7+gen2 > 7gen4 > 7gen3 > 7gen1.
If by the end of the year they release Snapdragon 8 gen5 and Snapdragon 8 E2, the ranking would be: 8 Elite2 > 8 Elite > 8 gen5 > 8 gen3 > 8s gen4…
6. Some Thoughts
I am just a consumer who likes to follow the mobile digital market.
From a consumer’s perspective, I find Qualcomm’s actions quite unscrupulous. If Qualcomm’s early frequent changes to the Snapdragon series names reflected their exploration of the market and their summary of SoC naming, then the current chaotic naming shows their manipulation of the market.
Qualcomm currently holds an unassailable dominance in the mobile SoC field, and they have chosen this time to initiate a “hundred schools of thought” battle, claiming to “create segmented markets,” but in reality, they are just trying to profit from the confusion.
By mixing up the names of various product lines, they are making consumers pay for the names, which is the most profitable business strategy in capital operations.