PERCEPTION, NOT JUST PERFORMACE, DEFINES REPUTATION IN TECH.
In the world of smartphone chipsets, three names consistently dominate headlines: Apple’s Bionic, Google’s Tensor, and Samsung’s Exynos. While Apple’s and Google’s custom silicon chips often get praise for their AI capabilities, hardware-software synergy, and innovation, Samsung’s Exynos consistently finds itself in the crossfire of online criticism.
But why? The 2025 release of the Galaxy Flip 7 has reignited this debate. Despite performance gains in the latest Exynos chipset, the hate remains. This blog explores why Exynos gets more heat than its counterparts and how regional inequality, historical inconsistencies, and perception issues all play a role.
A History of Inconsistency
Samsung’s approach to Exynos has been erratic. Unlike Apple and Google, who ship their devices with a single SoC globally, Samsung has long split its flagship line between Qualcomm Snapdragon and Exynos often depending on the region. Users in the US would get Snapdragon, while Europe, India, and other markets often got Exynos.
Unfortunately, this dual-chip strategy backfired. Numerous side-by-side comparisons consistently showed Snapdragon outperforming Exynos in:
- Thermal management
- Battery efficiency
- GPU performance (especially in gaming)
This led to an obvious and very vocal frustration in Exynos markets, especially when consumers paid the same premium price for what felt like a second-tier device. For example the Galaxy S20 series saw Exynos 990 significantly lag behind Snapdragon 865 in both CPU throttling and sustained GPU performance. it.
Regional Inequality: The Core of the Resentment
The biggest fuel to the Exynos hate fire is the feeling of injustice among international users. Apple’s Bionic chips are the same whether you buy an iPhone in California or Kolkata. Google’s Pixel devices, despite Tensor’s early hiccups, offer a unified experience worldwide.
Samsung, however, appeared to split its customers:
- Snapdragon for developed markets
- Exynos for everyone else
This created a psychological hierarchy:
“If Snapdragon is better, why am I getting Exynos? Am I paying the same for less?”
Even when differences in real-world usage are negligible in later years, the narrative has been shaped. Consumers remember.
Lack of a Clear Vision with Exynos
Apple’s silicon story is tightly woven with its ecosystem. Bionic chips are designed not only for performance but for seamless integration across iOS, macOS, and now even VisionOS. Similarly, Google uses Tensor to enhance AI-centric tasks live translation, smart dictation, computational photography.
Exynos? It never had a compelling, unique story. It always felt like a parallel chip to Snapdragon not a replacement with identity. That vagueness makes it forgettable at best and frustrating at worst.
Technical Shortcomings: Then vs Now
The Exynos 2400 in the Galaxy Flip 7 shows remarkable improvement:
- 10-core CPU with one Cortex-X4 core
- RDNA 3-based Xclipse GPU
- 4nm EUV process
Yet, doubts remain because Exynos has burned bridges:
- Prior overheating issues
- Game throttling controversies
- Lower ISP and AI performance compared to Bionic or Tensor
Moreover, Samsung’s reliance on AMD for GPU innovations has been inconsistent. While RDNA integration sounded promising, execution often fell short.
Snapdragon’s PR Advantage & Consistency
Qualcomm has established Snapdragon as a premium brand, helped by consistent benchmarks and wide OEM adoption. Snapdragon SoCs come with:
- Leading modem technologies (X70, X75)
- Better sustained performance
- Trust from reviewers and enthusiasts
Apple and Google also focus their narrative. Apple is about raw power and control. Google is about AI. Samsung’s Exynos lacks a narrative, and worse, it’s reactive rather than proactive.
Community Memory Is Long
Even if Exynos catches up or outpaces Snapdragon tomorrow, users remember the past:
- Lag in camera processing
- Poor GPU optimization for games
- Battery drain issues
Online communities like Reddit, XDA, and YouTube tech reviewers have extensive archives of Exynos’s underperformance. In contrast, Tensor and Bionic had fewer regions to disappoint and controlled their messaging from the start. Apple never allowed room for doubt. Google positioned Tensor not as the fastest, but as the smartest.
Is Exynos Hate Still Justified in 2025?
Technically? Maybe not.
The 2025 Exynos chip shows:
- On-par multicore CPU scores with Snapdragon 8 Gen 4
- Better thermal throttling resistance
- Improved NPU performance
But perception takes time to shift. Samsung must:
- Stick to a single-chip global strategy
- Build a clear Exynos brand identity
- Focus on unique strengths (e.g., AMD GPU, advanced AI, battery life)
Until then, Exynos hate will linger, even if undeserved.
Conclusion
Exynos doesn’t suffer from raw performance issues as much anymore. It suffers from a decade of fragmented strategy, inconsistent execution, and poor communication. Unlike Bionic and Tensor, which launched with singular purpose and direction, Exynos has always felt like the “alternate chip.”
To win back users, Samsung must offer global equality, consistent quality, and a story worth caring about. Because in 2025, chips are more than silicon they’re part of the brand’s soul.
MY TAKE
If Samsung intends to continue its split-chip strategy offering Exynos in some regions and Snapdragon in others it must address the root of consumer frustration: perceived inequality. A smart move would be to price Exynos variants about $99 lower than their Snapdragon counterparts. This price difference would not only feel like fair compensation for any remaining disparity but also shift the narrative. Over the next few generations, Samsung should introduce Exynos variants in traditionally Snapdragon-dominant markets at this discounted price. If Exynos truly reaches parity in performance and efficiency, the conversation could flip: consumers may begin to ask, “Why pay more for Snapdragon when Exynos offers the same experience?” This reverse psychology, coupled with performance validation, could help Samsung gradually phase out Snapdragon without backlash. If some resistance still lingers, a strategic rebranding of Exynos perhaps tying it symbolically to Samsung’s identity could reset public perception entirely, paving the way for one unified flagship SoC line.
What do you think? Can Exynos ever overcome its bad reputation, or is it too little too late? Drop your thoughts below.
