What you need to know
- A new rumor suggests that Samsung's upcoming Galaxy Tab S8 Ultra won't be powered by a Snapdragon chipset after all.
- The next-generation tablet will reportedly come with Samsung's own Exynos 2200 onboard.
- Samsung could launch the tablet early next year shortly after the debut of its next-gen flagship smartphones.
It's no secret that Samsung is already working on the Galaxy Tab S8 series as the successor to the Galaxy Tab S7 and Tab S7+, which are among the best Android tablets. The next-generation lineup was recently rumored to ship with Qualcomm's upcoming flagship SoC dubbed the Snapdragon 895, but that might not be entirely the case.
A post on a Korean forum claims that the Galaxy Tab S8 Ultra will be powered by Samsung's own Exynos 2200 processor, as per SamMobile. The new rumor also suggests only the Galaxy Tab S8 and Tab S8 Plus will feature Qualcomm's next-gen Snapdragon 895 SoC.
If previous rumors are correct, the Galaxy Tab S8 Ultra could give the iPad Pro a run for its money, as the Exynos 2200 is seen as a strong competitor to Apple's M1 SoC. Thanks to its supposed 5nm processing technology and AMD graphics, the chipset is expected to have improved capabilities such as increased computing power and battery efficiency. In addition to the next-gen Samsung tablet, the processor is expected to power the Samsung Galaxy S22 series as well as future laptops.
The Ultra model is obviously the higher-end variant of the series, with intriguing specs including a 14.6-inch display and a 92% screen-to-body ratio. It remains to be seen how the tablet will fare against the competition in terms of comfort given Its massive screen size, which borders on being a laptop alternative.
The Galaxy Tab S8 series is supposedly set for launch early next year, depending on when Samsung plans to unveil the Galaxy S22 series. Rumor has it that their respective launch dates won't be too far between.
Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
The Galaxy Tab S8 series has a lot to do to meet the same standard as Samsung's current flagship tablets. The S7+ offers a 12.4-inch AMOLED display with a 120Hz refresh rate, better battery life, S Pen support for productivity, and aggressive price points.
Jay Bonggolto always keeps a nose for news. He has been writing about consumer tech and apps for as long as he can remember, and he has used a variety of Android phones since falling in love with Jelly Bean. Send him a direct message via Twitter or LinkedIn.
It would be interesting to return to the days that there were higher tier ARM SOCs for tablets. The first generation of snapdragon 600 and 800 chips were that way, where phones mostly topped out with 600 and tablets got 800. Since then they've basically reversed, with only Samsung still putting 800's in tablets, and most others using a mix of 600's and 400's. I don't begrudge people cheap low end tablets, but in a work with Surface Pro and iPad Pro it would be nice to see a truly competitive Android tablet.
Android can never compete in that regard to Surface and iPads, because of the lack of software updates and software designed for productivity in mind.
Chrome OS is a far more suitable platform for Tablet PCs with a desktop browser, 8 year OS updates, Linux apps, Android apps, and a potential for native Pro-level apps in the future when ARM becomes more powerful like the M1 someday.
Samsung products are so full of bloatware and ads, it's not even funny.
The only Samsmug product I have is the Tab S7+...no ads, very little bloatware all of which can be disabled or removed using ADB.
Ha ha ha ha... No... Samsung make the best Android products... Both software and hardware are excellent... My Note 20 Ultra and Tab S7 LTE are the best Android products I have owned... What bloatware are you referring too? Samsung's own apps? These apps are very polished and are my goto applications working very well in both tablet and Dex modes...
Good for you
Get the best of Android Central in in your inbox, every day!
Thank you for signing up to Android Central. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.