I love seeing the usual onslaught of criticism each time a new Google Pixel is released. Most of it surrounds the Tensor chipset, with the constant refrain that it’s not powerful enough for the price Google charges for its phones.
Google is far from perfect, and the company has deserved much of the criticism it received over the years. However, the Tensor G5 is exactly what Google wanted from its chipset.
Google builds value differently with the Tensor G5 and the Pixel 10. You may not care or recognize the additional benefits, but that’s why you’re free to buy something else.
I agree with the direction Google is headed in. Unfortunately for the company, it’ll be years before we can clearly determine if Google’s decision to lean into AI with its chipset was a good idea.
The Tensor G5 isn’t the problem with the Pixel; you are.
Google shouldn’t be immune to questioning
People are entitled to ask for more
I don’t think everyone should unquestioningly give Google a pass for the Tensor G5.
If you recognize what the company is trying to accomplish, but disagree with the strategy, I have no issue.
It’s a completely legitimate argument to want Google to use a Snapdragon chipset in its Pixel phones or for Google to aim to design a more powerful Tensor.
You don’t care about AI or TPUs, you just want the best raw performance possible from your Pixel for the money you pay. I know I’d love to see slightly better gaming performance from my Pixel 10, but it’s not mission-critical for me.
I respect people who want a more powerful Pixel, but I disagree with them. I’ve seen that movie before with Google phones, and it didn’t work.
The same people complaining about the lack of raw performance from the Tensor G5 are the people who didn’t buy a Pixel 4 XL when Google fitted its phones with the latest and greatest from Qualcomm.
It’s also hard to argue with the results.
People always point to Google’s market share as evidence that the company’s strategy is failing. However, critics rarely acknowledge that the current market share is an increase, with the company’s sales moving in the right direction.
Google tried it your way, but no one bought in significant numbers compared to smartphones from Samsung and others. So, Google is trying something different.
The entire book on Tensor isn’t written yet
Google is futureproofing in other ways
More focus was given to the TPU in the Tensor G5. There’s only so much room, and a larger area of the die dedicated to the TPU would mean reduced GPU focus.
Google isn’t targeting the Pixel 10 at enthusiasts, so it makes sense that it would devote resources to the chipset to functions that improve the overall user experience.
I keep hearing that people don’t care about the TPU because they feel most of the processing for AI takes place in the cloud. That’s not entirely inaccurate, but the point of the Tensor G5 is that Google was able to move much of that processing onto the device.
Real-time voice translation, computational photography, and features like Magic Cue will run faster on the device, without relying heavily on the cloud. Google wants its AI features to run well for years, and if that doesn’t matter to you, it’s not your phone.
Previous Tensors didn’t lack the overhead for futureproofing. Raw horsepower is great, but it needs to be matched by well-optimized software.
Material 3 Expressive runs smoothly on my Pixel 6, and it has shown me that Google might actually deliver some value with its promises of extended software support.
Google made the decision that TPU overhead will be more important to its software updates and features moving forward, and just because you can’t see the benefit today doesn’t mean it’s not worth it.
I can’t stand the nonsense
Pixels can game just fine
I mentioned earlier that I wouldn’t mind a bump in gaming performance on my Pixel 10, but that doesn’t mean the phone can’t play games.
It’s a step-down in settings from the Snapdragon 8 Elite, but titles like Genshin Impact still play comfortably on medium settings.
I hate the impression people give that if you’re any kind of mobile gamer, you should avoid a Pixel, as if Pokémon Go is somehow a bridge too far for Google’s flagship. It’s a ridiculous argument, and it needs to be softened.
I also hate the implication that Google was just too lazy or didn’t care enough to produce a more powerful chipset.
I can respectfully disagree with people arguing that Google should’ve made that its goal, but I don’t entertain the notion that Google just wasn’t able to come up with a more powerful chipset. It wasn’t the company’s focus.
I’m sure Google could’ve reduced the resources allocated to the TPU and increased GPU performance, but it made that decision.
It wasn’t a failure; it was by design. Google didn’t fail in producing a more powerful chipset — it wasn’t trying.
There’s a discussion to be had, but we have to be reasonable
I love how the most vocal Pixel critics are usually those who aren’t using one.
If you’re disappointed that your Pixel 10 can’t edit 4K video smoothly or that you can’t game six hours a day without slowdowns, then you weren’t paying attention.
I’ve complained about plenty of Pixel smartphones in my time, but you have to be fair. Google has made notable improvements with the Pixel, and the sales data backs that up.
9/10
- SoC
-
Google Tensor G5
- RAM
-
16GB
- Storage
-
256 GB / 512 GB / 1TB with Zoned UFS / 1 TB with Zoned UFS
- Battery
-
5200mAh
The Pixel 10 Pro XL packs all the same features you’ll find on its less expensive siblings, along with a few exclusive features like a 6.8-inch display and faster charging.
