The next high-end generation from Samsung arrives with an uncomfortable paradox for the South Korean giant. While the company is trying to relaunch its push for proprietary processors with the new Exynos 2600, surveys point to a stark reality: the vast majority of users still trust Qualcomm’s Snapdragon chipsets more and would even be willing to pay more for them.
A study that challenges Samsung
According to a survey commissioned by Qualcomm itself and cited by South Korean media, consumers are three times more likely to buy a smartphone equipped with a Snapdragon processor compared to models with chips from other manufacturers.
The results also detail that:
- 84% of respondents consider Qualcomm the leader in the smartphone processor segment.
- Users would be willing to pay an average price premium of 16% as long as the device features a Snapdragon SoC.
Although the exact size of the sample has not been made public and any study promoted by a brand should be viewed with caution, the data reinforce a longstanding trend: for a significant portion of the public, “Snapdragon” has become synonymous with quality, performance, and stability in Android.
The Galaxy case: the gap between Snapdragon and Exynos
The problem for Samsung is that this preference directly conflicts with its strategy to reduce dependence on third parties. For some time now, the company has been trying to give more prominence to Exynos, its own line of processors, both for cost reasons and technological sovereignty.
In the case of the upcoming Galaxy S26 series, leaks and industry analyses point to a complicated distribution:
- Approximately 75% of Galaxy S26 models would use the new Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, especially in key markets.
- The Galaxy S26 and S26+ in some countries (like South Korea and other Asian markets) would feature the Exynos 2600, designed as a “homegrown” alternative to lower costs.
However, perception surveys don’t help. A global poll organized by the specialized outlet PhoneArena asked users directly which chipset they preferred for the Galaxy lineup: the new Snapdragon 8 5th Gen or the Exynos 2600. The result was devastating: more than 9 out of 10 participants chose Snapdragon.
The recurring arguments among users are well-known:
- Better energy efficiency (battery life).
- Stronger performance in AI, connectivity, and graphics.
- Higher overall stability and fewer thermal issues.
This confidence gap is precisely what worries Samsung’s MX division, responsible for mobile business. The company knows that any perceptible difference between Snapdragon and Exynos models can lead to criticism, unfavorable comparisons, and in the worst case, lost sales in certain markets.
Two design philosophies: “full custom” versus “half custom”
The root of the problem is not just marketing. It also relates to how each company designs its chips.
Both Qualcomm and Samsung base their designs on Arm technology, which offers a standard reference design for mobile processors. But after that, their approaches diverge:
- Qualcomm pursues a “full custom” approach:
- Uses only parts of Arm’s instruction sets and low-power philosophies.
- Designs its own cores and architecture to maximize performance and efficiency within the Android ecosystem.
- Focuses on heterogeneous computing: CPU, GPU, NPU, memory, and other blocks work in coordination, sharing loads intelligently based on the task (AI, gaming, connectivity, camera, etc.).
- Samsung, on the other hand, has oscillated between attempts at full custom designs and use of Arm’s standard design, with partial optimizations:
- For years, Samsung tried to develop fully customized cores, similar to Qualcomm or Apple, but earlier projects were canceled.
- Currently, it relies much more on Arm’s “off-the-shelf” designs, adding modifications and improvements, a strategy known as “half custom”.
- While this approach simplifies development and reduces risks, it also limits the potential to reach the same level of optimization as more advanced rivals.
Practically, this means some Exynos chips have shown good benchmark results but don’t always deliver the same smoothness or efficiency in daily use as their Snapdragon equivalents. That difference, whether real or perceived, weighs heavily on power users’ minds.
Snapdragon as a “trust mark” in the AI era
The shift toward increasingly expensive phones, with more generative AI features and intensive computing tasks, has made the processor a central buying factor. It’s no longer just about apps opening quickly, but about:
- Generating images and videos with AI directly on the device.
- Summarizing texts, transcribing audio, and translating calls in real time.
- Editing photos and videos with advanced tools without relying on the cloud.
In this new context, many consumers see Snapdragon as the “reliable brain” ensuring a good long-term experience. This has important implications:
- For Qualcomm, it cements its position as an almost necessary provider for the high-end Android segment.
- For Samsung, it creates a dilemma between cost savings and user satisfaction.
The company has faced controversial episodes in the past, such as distributing the same Galaxy model with Snapdragon in some countries and Exynos in others, resulting in unfavorable comparisons and perceptions of “unequal treatment” between regions.
The gamble (and risk) of Exynos 2600
Within this landscape, Exynos 2600 is viewed internally as a kind of recovery test. Technically, all signs indicate it will be a notable jump over previous Exynos generations, with improvements in efficiency, graphics power, and AI capabilities.
But the key question isn’t just whether the chip will be “good,” but whether it will be sufficiently good to convince users who have already committed to Snapdragon:
- If the Exynos 2600 performs close to the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 in real-world tests, in power consumption, stability, and performance, it could start changing the narrative.
- If differences remain too evident (especially in battery life, heat, and sustained performance), rejection will grow, especially in markets where Snapdragon and Exynos models are sold alongside each other.
Sources from the industry cited in Korean media suggest that Samsung’s MX team may be open to adjusting their chipset mix after launch, depending on public reception. It’s not the first time the manufacturer has modified its SoC strategy under user and operator pressure.
A future shaped by perception, not just power
The battle for the heart (and wallet) of high-end Android users takes place both in design labs and in the consumer’s mind. Qualcomm has successfully made Snapdragon more than just a technical component: it’s an aspirational brand, a seal of quality associated with performance, gaming, camera, and AI.
Samsung, meanwhile, tries to balance two difficult-to-reconcile objectives:
- Strengthening Exynos to reduce reliance on external chips and improve margins.
- Avoiding the “second-tier” perception in markets where it uses its own chips instead of Snapdragon.
Surveys showing that 90% of users would prefer a device with Snapdragon and would be willing to pay up to a 16% premium serve as a serious warning. If the Exynos 2600 doesn’t meet expectations, the reputational cost could outweigh the savings of not purchasing certain volumes from Qualcomm.
Ultimately, the success or failure of this strategy will be measured not just in gigahertz or benchmark scores, but in something much simpler: which processor the user chooses when faced with two similar phones on the shelf… and which one they trust for their next 3-year contract.
via: Chosun