Update:

>> You were probably not expecting this :-D

> Absolutely. This comes most unexpected. I'd have never thought someone
> would supersede nVidia regarding ARM64/ARMv8

Cavium trailing behind Applied Micro:

http://www.cavium.com/newsevents_Cavium_Licenses_ARM_Architecture.html
http://www.cavium.com/newsevents_Cavium_Unveils_Project_Thunder.html
http://www.cavium.com/processor_Project_Thunder.html
http://www.arm.com/about/newsroom/arm-and-cavium-extend-relationship-with-armv8-architecture-license.php
http://blogs.arm.com/smart-connected-devices/773-arm-in-servers-cavium-welcome-to-the-party/

...and nVidia seems to be slacking.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Don't think Cavium are quite in the same market but but it looks like they're headed in the same direction.
BTW I read an interview with Applied Micro a while back where they said they expect to start sampling soon and see shipping products by the end of next year. 4 - 32 cores @ 2.5GHz.

Quote:

They might just not have anything to talk about yet.

BTW I was digging around eBay and found the cheapo tablets are even cheaper and there's now ARM laptops appearing. Tablets are £30 and Laptops (i.e. netbooks) £50. A 10" 1GHz A9 laptop is £80 ...with free postage.

You can now buy a new laptop for less than a second hand Mac mini. That's just mind boggling.

We are now into the era of seriously cheap computing.

> Don't think Cavium are quite in the same market

True. There's a nice blog article by HP summarizing the different target applications for Applied Micro's X-Gene and Cavium's Project Thunder:

http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/Hyperscale-Computing-Blog/Pathfinders-Making-it-Matter-Welcome-to-Applied-Micro-and-Cavium/ba-p/119167

More on Applied Micro's X-Gene:

Novel-server-CPUs-glow-at-Hot-Chips?pageNumber=1

First chip has 8 cores @ 2.5GHz, second chip gets 16 @ 3GHz.

> I've heard the 3 core IBM Wii2 a few times now. Sounds perfectly plausible.

More info from June:

"Three cores (fully coherent)."
http://www.vgleaks.com/world-premiere-wii-u-specs/

And some more recent info:

"The Wii U's IBM-made CPU is made up of three Power PC cores. We've been unable to ascertain the clock speed of the CPU (more on this later), but we know out of order execution is supported. [...] The mention of the Wii U's CPU raised our eyebrow - as it has done for many developers we've spoken to. While its clock speed remains private, most developers agree it is lower than the clock speed offered by the PS3 and Xbox 360's CPUs - disappointing for many."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-30-how-powerful-is-the-wii-u-really

Update:

>> "the CPU is very likely to be a PowerPC of one sort or other too.
>> Then again, [...] there are strong and credible rumors of it being an
>> AMD x86 core ala Trinity. In any case more SemiAccurate moles are
>> still saying PowerPC, that architecture makes much more sense here."
>> http://semiaccurate.com/2011/12/05/exclusive-xbox-next-chip-just-taped-out/

> "Sources close to Xbox World magazine have revealed that Durango’s
> devkit features a “monster” 16-core IBM PowerPC CPU"
> http://sillegamer.com/2012/04/06/xbox-720-devkit-specs-detailed-includes-16-core-processor/

"SemiAccurate has been saying for a while that all signs were pointing toward a PowerPC, specifically an IBM Power-EN variant. The dark horse was an x86 CPU, but it was a long shot. It looks like the long shot came through, moles are now openly talking about AMD x86 CPU cores"
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/04/microsoft-xbox-next-delay-rumors-abound/

If the rumour of Oban being an x86 chip holds true, then I think the Durango devkit doesn't have PPC either (just wouldn't make sense).

> Cortex-A15 is due this year...

I really didn't expect it so soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A6

Apple being first is especially funny as two months ago Samsung claimed their Exynos 5 chip
to be "the first chip in the market to integrate Cortex-A15 dual core" (page 4).

Apple A6 having Cortex-A15 cores has not been officially confirmed yet, but there are strong pro arguments:
http://munsie.tumblr.com/post/31483017459/iphone-5-processor

Correction:

> Apple A6 having Cortex-A15 cores has not been officially confirmed yet

As it has been revealed now, it's not Cortex-A15. It's not Cortex at all but rather Apple's very own implementation of the ARMv7-A ISA. With this, Apple joins the ranks of Marvell (Sheeva PJ4/PJ4B) and Qualcomm (Scorpion, Krait) in developing their own ARMv7 cores rather than just licensing ready-made Cortex-A cores from ARM Ltd.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6292/iphone-5-a6-not-a15-custom-core

I'm anxious to know how Apple's A6 core compares to Cortex-A15 and Krait performance-wise. And I guess that Samsung still can manage to have "the first chip in the market to integrate Cortex-A15 dual core" with their Exynos 5 :-)

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

When they bought they bought PA-Semi I suspected they'd do their own CPU.
I've been wondering if it was something of their own in the A6.

> When they bought they bought PA-Semi I suspected they'd do their own CPU.

Let's not forget Intrinsity here :-)

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Think that they will use any of Intrinsity's gating technology?

> Think that they will use any of Intrinsity's gating technology?

It's well known that the Cortex-A8 core in Apple's A4 chip uses Fast14, and in the linked posting minator said:

"Before they were bought, there were rumours of Intrinsity working on a 2Ghz Cortex-A9."

From this I presume that also the Cortex-A9 core in Apple's A5 and A5X chips uses the technology. Thus I find it highly plausible that Fast14 technology has been applied to the custom core in Apple's A6 chip as well.

That could lead to a really frightening prcessor.

> That could lead to a really frightening prcessor.

In the case of the A6 to mediocre performance at a frighteningly low power consumption, yes.

Quote:

mediocre performance?
Why do you think this?

> mediocre performance? Why do you think this?

First off, I'm talking about CPU performance alone, i.e. not taking the GPU into account. The A6 CPU performance should be mediocre in comparison because the A6 in the iPhone 5 is a dual-core chip running at a fairly low 1.0 GHz. If we assume a per-clock performance similar to that of the Krait core found in Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 chips, then the result of a performance comparison between the dual-core 1.0 GHz A6 and the dual-core 1.5 GHz Snapdragon S4 (as can be found in current phones from various manufacturers) should be pretty predictable I'd say.

Quote:

Nobody knows the clock rate - Geekbench tends to report incorrect results.

Quote:

That's a big assumption.

Quote:

The Geekbench results (assuming they are accurate) show it to be within 20% of a 1.5GHz S4 based phone. If it really is running at 1GHz (probably not, I'd guess around 1.2GHz) it sounds like it has higher IPC.

Quote:

Scrub that.
Looks like the result I look at might have been overclocked and the A6 might actually be faster.

I was comparing it to a HTC One XL and there are a few results below the 1600 the iPhone 5 posted.

> Nobody knows the clock rate - Geekbench tends to report incorrect results.

Ah okay, I didn't know that. So let's wait and see what the clock rate really is.

>> If we assume a per-clock performance similar to that of the Krait core
>> found in Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 chips,

> That's a big assumption.

What's your estimation then on how the A6 core compares to Krait (or Cortex-A15) per clock?

Btw, I'm in good company regarding this point:
"We believe the custom A6 CPU is similar in complexity and performance to Cortex-A15 as well as to the Krait CPU that appears in Qualcomm’s newest processors. To reach Apple’s claim of a 2x performance gain over the iPhone 4S (which uses the Apple A5 processor), we expect the A6 contains two CPU cores clocking at roughly 1.2GHz. This speed is lower than what competing A15-class CPUs achieve, presumably to save power. As a result, the iPhone 5 will probably fall short of other high-end smartphones in raw CPU performance, although the same has been true of previous iPhone generations."
http://www.linleygroup.com/newsletters/newsletter_detail.php?num=4881

> I'd guess around 1.2GHz

You're in good company then (see above) ;-)

> I was comparing it to a HTC One XL and there are a few results below
> the 1600 the iPhone 5 posted.

Yeah, it seems that Geekbench favours the A6 very much, or that the A6 favours the benchmarks Geekbench consists of, depending on how you look at it. I'm surprised.

>mediocre performance?

Yeah Andreas,
I think you're being a little harsh here, too.
Even at 1.2 this looks pretty powerful.
And with Intrinsity's gating it might clock higher.

> Yeah Andreas, I think you're being a little harsh here, too.

This may well be. I'm really surprised about how the dual-core A6 seems to beat the 1.5 GHz dual-Krait CPUs in Geekbench at a significantly lower clock rate (which also includes 1.2 GHz). I didn't expect that. This would mean the per-clock performance of the A6 core to be significantly higher than Krait's, and thus maybe even Cortex-A15's.

> Even at 1.2 this looks pretty powerful. And with
> Intrinsity's gating it might clock higher.

I doubt the A6 will clock higher than 1.2 GHz in the iPhone. Maybe later in the next iPad, as the tablet form factor allows for a bit more power consumption.

Jim
Quote:

It might be the other way around - they might have designed the frequency significantly lower and used the clever gating to bring it up. This would mean it's a wide but has a short pipeline - a good power saving trick.

Here's one Andreas missed:

Project boulder. If it's true, it sounds like a much more high end device and possibly the first time we'll see anyone building an ARM core for the high end.

In other news Global foundries have pulled in their 14nm process to 2014, this could get very interesting indeed as that's when they'll add FinFets.

Well, so much for the PandaBoard.
Here's my new favorite.
1.4 GHz Quad Core Cortex A9 for $129 shipped worldwide.

http://www.hardkernel.com/renewal_2011/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=G133999328931