Google bet big on its own silicon. The company wanted Pixel phones defined by clever software tricks running on custom hardware tuned for exactly that. Instead, the Tensor chips delivered a rough ride for many buyers.
Overheating from day one. Throttling under modest loads. Battery life that disappointed until later fixes arrived. Those problems marked the first two generations. They shaped perceptions that linger even as the hardware improved.
Stephen Radochia laid it out plainly after testing every version. In Android Authority, he wrote that the original Tensor “constantly overheated, throttling performance and shortening battery life.” Updates helped a bit. The damage was done. Early Pixel 6 owners endured months of frustration.
The Tensor G2 in the Pixel 7 fared little better at first. “It took a bit more to get that chipset to overheat, but it still happened,” Radochia noted. “The phone’s polished aluminum frame often got hot to the touch.” Google started poorly. Plenty of shoppers crossed Pixels off their lists.
But the story runs deeper than a few hot phones. Google built the first Tensor on Samsung’s Exynos foundation. The design mixed CPU cores that favored efficiency over peak speed. It paired that with a powerful TPU for machine learning tasks. The bet was that software smarts and on-device AI would matter more than raw benchmarks.
For everyday use that approach worked. Scrolling felt smooth. Camera processing delivered magic. Yet power users noticed the gaps immediately. Games lagged at high settings. Sustained tasks triggered thermal limits fast. Tensors never matched Snapdragon flagship numbers, a fact Radochia highlighted. Pixels simply weren’t built for enthusiasts chasing frame rates.
The Long Shadow of Early Missteps
That initial stumble created a feedback loop. Negative reviews piled up. Resale values for early Pixels suffered. By the time Google refined the formula in the Tensor G3 and G4, the narrative had hardened. Many consumers still associate the brand with sluggish performance despite measurable gains in battery and thermals on the Pixel 8, 9 and 10 series.
Recent user sentiment on X reflects the divide. One poster who owned multiple Pixels complained that since the Tensor era, “Twitter/X never scrolled smoothly as almost every other OEM flagships does.” Another called the chip “horrible,” praising the last Snapdragon-powered Pixel 5 as a device that holds up years later. These anecdotes echo the early Android Authority critique.
Google doubled down anyway. The company poured resources into on-device Gemini models and features like Call Notes, Magic Editor and audio magic eraser. Those capabilities shine brightest on Tensor hardware thanks to the dedicated TPU. They keep loyal fans engaged even when silicon benchmarks trail competitors.
Yet the hardware foundation remained a compromise until recently. Fabrication on Samsung’s process nodes contributed to higher power draw and heat compared with TSMC-built rivals from Apple and Qualcomm. Industry watchers took notice when Google made a dramatic switch.
In 2025 reports surfaced that the Tensor G5 for the Pixel 10 would be Google’s first fully custom design, built on TSMC’s advanced 3nm process. 9to5Google broke the news of the shift, which reportedly stunned Samsung. The South Korean giant began “intensively analyzing” why it lost the contract, according to TweakTown.
The move signaled Google finally acknowledged the thermal and efficiency problems tied to its prior manufacturing partner. TSMC’s node promised cooler operation and better battery life out of the gate. Android Police later reported Google committed to TSMC for at least the next several generations, a decision that could reshape Pixel competitiveness.
Even so, the G5 arrives against a backdrop of skepticism. Some X users in recent weeks called the current Tensor G4 “objectively slow” versus Snapdragon and MediaTek rivals in certain workloads. Others noted persistent scrolling jitters that no software update has fully erased. One developer complained about the lack of public SDK access to the NPU on Pixel Fold devices, limiting advanced AI experimentation.
Google’s own executives have stayed relatively quiet on the silicon shortcomings. The company prefers to talk about software magic and seven years of updates. That strategy succeeded in growing Pixel market share, particularly in the United States. But premium pricing now puts these phones against devices with faster chips, brighter screens and longer battery endurance on paper.
Radochia captured the tension well. Later Tensor generations delivered the experience many expected from the start. Overheating dropped. Battery life met or exceeded expectations on Pro models. Still, he wondered whether one strong generation could erase years of doubt. “It’s hard to believe the company can successfully change course and please buyers in only one generation,” he wrote. Success with the next chip, expected in the Pixel 11, will require getting things right immediately.
The broader lesson stretches beyond one product line. Custom silicon demands years of iteration. Apple spent a decade refining its A-series chips before they dominated. Qualcomm refined Snapdragon through constant competition. Google entered the game late, with a different goal: optimize for its AI vision rather than benchmark leadership.
That choice brought real strengths. On-device processing for photos, transcription and now generative features reduces cloud dependency and improves privacy. Quick Share finally works smoothly with AirDrop, a small but welcome interoperability win that delights users.
Yet the cost appears in sustained performance. Heavy tasks still trigger throttling sooner than on rival flagships. Gamers notice. Power users grumble. And in a market where flagship prices top $1,000, excuses wear thin.
Recent leaks and tests of the Tensor G5 suggest meaningful progress. The custom architecture and superior manufacturing node should deliver better efficiency. Whether that translates into smoother scrolling, cooler operation under load and competitive gaming remains to be seen when full reviews arrive.
Google faces a narrow path. It must preserve the Pixel identity built on camera prowess and clean software while addressing the hardware complaints that have dogged the line since 2021. The Tensor experiment isn’t over. But the company no longer enjoys the benefit of low expectations.
Buyers have choices. Samsung, OnePlus and others offer fast chips at similar prices. Apple keeps tightening its integration. Google’s edge lies in the small delights its hardware enables. Those delights must arrive without the earlier pain points. Otherwise the narrative of Tensor as a compromise chip may prove impossible to escape.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication