> 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

> Project boulder [...] sounds like a much more high end device

Much more high-end than what? If I have understood right, Project Boulder is supposed to be a server chip that incorporates Project Denver's CPU core.

> and possibly the first time we'll see anyone building an ARM core for the high end.

If my assumption above is correct, the ARM *core* would still be Project Denver, not Project Boulder. And of course, Project Denver would have to be completed before Project Boulder.
Furthermore, I think Applied Micro (X-Gene) or even Cavium (Project Thunder) might arrive in high-end ARM land before nVidia (Project Denver/Boulder).

Update:

>>> the A6 in the iPhone 5 is a dual-core chip running at a fairly low 1.0 GHz.

>> 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.

It's said to be actually 1.3 GHz:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/26/apple-a6-cpu-13ghz-geekbench-confirmed-overclocking/

Received TI Stellaris LM4F120 LaunchPad evaluation board today.
Pretty neat for $5.

If anyone is actually looking at ARM this might be of some use:

http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.dai0245b/index.html

> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.dai0245b/index.html

I had expected to see this link here sooner ;-)

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35953&forum=33#670028
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35953&forum=33&start=20#670258

Quote:

I would like to point out that there is a big difference between a consumer product and a development platform which is being sold at a subsidized price (PandaBoard, etc.).

Consumer products using the same Samsung processor are substantially more expensive.

ASiegel,Quote:

As long as it is sold to everyone without qualification, its still worthy of consideration.