- Mar 11, 2000
- 23,583
- 996
- 126
What ARM targets for their own designs, and what Apple designs aren't the same thing. As far as what Apple will actually ship, we'll have to wait and see. It won't be much longer though.Will Apple provide SVE in their ARM-based HEDT machines?
Reading ARM's website, their targetted use of SVE seems to be HPC and data-centres, and the internet out to the edge, but not beyond.
However, they do support running tools such as Forge on home computers, to develop SVE applications on the cloud, in the face of Covid-19.
Yeah. It should be very soon.What ARM targets for their own designs, and what Apple designs aren't the same thing. As far as what Apple will actually ship, we'll have to wait and see. It won't be much longer though.
Lets see what the Geekbench5 score will be. I expect 1550 - 1600 pts @ 2.8 GHz in single thread which will outperform any today's desktops (Intel 10900K @ 5.3 GHz is around 1450 pts).Yeah. It should be very soon.
It’s now October and the retail chains have begun receiving marketing materials for the iPad Air 4, so we’re probably talking just days now.
Yes, very impressive, and it looks like my guess was in the right ballpark.Year after year after year they manage to impress.
The Apple A14:
ttps://twitter.com/HansDeVriesNL/status/1312251291704479744?s=20View attachment 30860
Oh these are the same March ones? Hmm...
The number I have issue with is the 1658 single core. I was guessing 15xx so this seems a tad too high. The 4068 seems reasonable though.
Is it too high though? Metal score of A14 is about the same as A12Z (within a few percent).
Is this Metal score possible? Seems way too high.
Pos | Man | CPU | Core | Year | ISA | GB5 Score | GHz | PPC (score/GHz) | Relative to 9900K | Relative to Zen3 |
1 | Nuvia | (Est.) | Phoenix (Est.) | 2021 | ARMv9.0 | 2001 | 3.00 | 667.00 | 241.0% | 194.1% |
2 | Apple | A15 (Est.) | (Est.) | 2021 | ARMv9.0 | 1925 | 3.00 | 641.70 | 231.8% | 186.8% |
3 | Apple | A14 | Firestorm | 2020 | ARMv8.6 | 1562 | 2.80 | 558.00 | 201.6% | 162.4% |
4 | Apple | A13 | Lightning | 2019 | ARMv8.4 | 1332 | 2.65 | 502.64 | 181.6% | 146.3% |
5 | Apple | A12 | Vortex | 2018 | ARMv8.3 | 1116 | 2.53 | 441.11 | 159.4% | 128.4% |
What were you predicting for the clock speed? A lot of people were predicting 2.8 GHz to 3.0 GHz. Also note that this is an iPad, not an iPhone.GB5 1583 pts is even more by 21 pts than my prediction where I used official data for 40% uplift from A12.
It looks like almost there is no need to change table data
But wait. What about the frequency?
Tweet says 2.99 GHz which too high............... this looks like fake.
L1 data cache only 64 kB? A13 has 128 kB..... looks like fake
L2 cache only 4 MB? A13 has 8 MB ................. this is really suspicious.
I think it's probably fake and somebody tries to gain attention.
Pos Man CPU Core Year ISA GB5 Score GHz PPC (score/GHz) Relative to 9900K Relative to Zen3 1 Nuvia (Est.) Phoenix (Est.) 2021 ARMv9.0 2001 3.00 667.00 241.0% 194.1% 2 Apple A15 (Est.) (Est.) 2021 ARMv9.0 1925 3.00 641.70 231.8% 186.8% 3 Apple A14 Firestorm 2020 ARMv8.6 1562 2.80 558.00 201.6% 162.4% 4 Apple A13 Lightning 2019 ARMv8.4 1332 2.65 502.64 181.6% 146.3% 5 Apple A12 Vortex 2018 ARMv8.3 1116 2.53 441.11 159.4% 128.4%
What were you predicting for the clock speed? A lot of people were predicting 2.8 GHz to 3.0 GHz. Also note that this is an iPad, not an iPhone.
I am hopeful this is legit but we shall see. FWIW, it does follow Apple’s benchmark leak pattern for previous Ax releases. It usually shows up days before the official product release, to generate buzz. I’m not sure if it’s due to Apple releasing it themselves or reviewers doing it inadvertently, but my guess is both. Apple often first, and then NDA’d reviewers shortly afterwards.
EDIT:
This A13 bench report is showing 4 MB L2 for example, not 8 MB. And the L1 data cache for A13 is listed at only 48 KB.
iPhone 11 Pro Max - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an iPhone 11 Pro Max with an Apple A13 Bionic processor.browser.geekbench.com
View attachment 30866
Nice. The performance march continues. Also, here are the caches.Here's a link to A13 versus the new result:
iPhone 11 Pro Max vs iPad13,2 - Geekbench
browser.geekbench.com
View attachment 30872
If legit it's a ~5% increase in single core points per clock in GB5.
I used 2.8 GHz for my IPC calculation ................... this means 11% IPC increase from A13.What were you predicting for the clock speed? A lot of people were predicting 2.8 GHz to 3.0 GHz. Also note that this is an iPad, not an iPhone.
I am hopeful this is legit but we shall see. FWIW, it does follow Apple’s benchmark leak pattern for previous Ax releases. It usually shows up days before the official product release, to generate buzz. I’m not sure if it’s due to Apple releasing it themselves or reviewers doing it inadvertently, but my guess is both. Apple often first, and then NDA’d reviewers shortly afterwards.
The actual clock speed is around 3.0. Geekbench measures it during ST test, and it has not been wrong for any other Apple product.I used 2.8 GHz for my IPC calculation ................... this means 11% IPC increase from A13.
But with 3 GHz and 1583 pts = 527 pts/GHz ........ this means 5% IPC increase only.
That would be the lowest IPC gain in Apple's history.The lowest IPC gain had A10 Hurricane core with only 8% uplift.
I really doubt that A14 will have that low IPC uplift. So for me it's fake or frequency is wrong. Score itself is OK. Also L1 cache is wrongly reported as A12 and A13 both have 128 kB data L1. I guess frequency is probably wrongly reported.
I expect 3.0 GHz in ARM MacBooks for different SoC with lower transistor densisty. But not in iPhone or iPad with same HD silicon. AFAIK A12X didn't have higher frequency than iPhone's A12.
OK, that means the lowest IPC uplift in Apple's history is real (5%).The actual clock speed is around 3.0. Geekbench measures it during ST test, and it has not been wrong for any other Apple product.
You can you can check from the json output by adding ".gb5" to the URL:
GB5 1583 pts is even more by 21 pts than my prediction where I used official data for 40% uplift from A12.
It looks like almost there is no need to change table data
But wait. What about the frequency?
Tweet says 2.99 GHz which too high............... this looks like fake.
L1 data cache only 64 kB? A13 has 128 kB..... looks like fake
L2 cache only 4 MB? A13 has 8 MB ................. this is really suspicious.
I think it's probably fake and somebody tries to gain attention.
Pos Man CPU Core Year ISA GB5 Score GHz PPC (score/GHz) Relative to 9900K Relative to Zen3 1 Nuvia (Est.) Phoenix (Est.) 2021 ARMv9.0 2001 3.00 667.00 241.0% 194.1% 2 Apple A15 (Est.) (Est.) 2021 ARMv9.0 1925 3.00 641.70 231.8% 186.8% 3 Apple A14 Firestorm 2020 ARMv8.6 1562 2.80 558.00 201.6% 162.4% 4 Apple A13 Lightning 2019 ARMv8.4 1332 2.65 502.64 181.6% 146.3% 5 Apple A12 Vortex 2018 ARMv8.3 1116 2.53 441.11 159.4% 128.4%
A4?Historically GB5 has been OK at getting the frequency and lousy at getting the cache sizes. Look at their values for A13s. The frequency is reasonable for 5nm.
More analysis here:
Real World Technologies - Forums - Thread: Plausible A4 numbers
www.realworldtech.com
You are too easily satisfied Eug 😂 I personally demand more cores!BTW, if these CPU and GPU scores are truly legit, they definitely would be more than enough for a fanless 12” MacBook.
Yeah, my needs in a laptop are pretty limited. My main concern at this point are:You are too easily satisfied Eug 😂 I personally demand more cores!
2 big + 4 little is not enough for a premium device that will cost $1k + with the right ram and ssd option. Let apple settle this dissatisfaction by offering
...and charge another $200 more for the heavy option. Sure in single thread it will make no difference but cater to my ego or something 😉
- fanless 12" "cheap" with the A14 (2 big + 4 little)
- fanless 12 "heavy" with the A14X (4 big + 4 little and better gpu)
I bought an A10 iPad 7 cellular for the wife for cheap last year. Performance is fine on that too, for surfing, email, business applications, and its 3 GB RAM is relatively OK.(Said a person who is using a 2019 ipad 7th gen with an A10 for $249 last year and I am satisfied with its performance. (in Geekbench 747
Single-Core Score, 1375 Multi-Core Score, so we are talking 2x for Single Core, and 3x for Multi Core for the $599, that is a great value for the air even though the 2020 8th gen is now a12 with 1100 ish single core and 2800 ish multi core based on the last year's ipad air.)
You are too easily satisfied Eug 😂 I personally demand more cores!
2 big + 4 little is not enough for a premium device that will cost $1k + with the right ram and ssd option. Let apple settle this dissatisfaction by offering
- fanless 12" "cheap" with the A14 (2 big + 4 little)
- fanless 12 "heavy" with the A14X (4 big + 4 little and better gpu
*Nods*I wouldn't necessarily assume the A14 will show up in any Mac, the iPhone is Apple's big money product and they wouldn't want to risk its schedule by including extra bits in the design only necessary for the Mac line.
Probably makes more sense to use the A14X (or whatever suffix letter(s) we may see) for every Macbook Air, and adjust the number of enabled cores / clock rate to create 2 or 3 levels of performance. Since they don't have a defined release schedule for iPad Pro like they do for the iPhone they won't care so much if its release slips by a few months because of some Mac related issues with the SoC.
I wouldn't be surprised if the top end CPU core/clock config serves as the low end for the next step up. That is high end Macbook Air = low end Macbook; high end Macbook = low end Macbook Pro.
*Nods*
That makes sense and I would be fine with die harvested A14X stuff or whatever letter they use for they may use different letters for the mac line. Like do you need pci-express on a macbook line? You do not need a gpu, wifi can use a different connection, etc? Do we get Thunderbolt 3 / USB 4? How about Thunderbolt 4? etc, etc.
I am also fine with apple put lots of those mini cores on there since they are so die efficient. I just want 4 big cores on any $1k price mac even if 2 big cores still perform very well. I am also fine with 2 big cores being a cheaper option for $800 to $1000 prices, even $1050. ( Yes it not about me, but we are talking the subjective experience of "satisfaction" here. )
Nice analysis at RWT and I agree with #2 scenario: A14 is small IPC/uarch jump.Historically GB5 has been OK at getting the frequency and lousy at getting the cache sizes. Look at their values for A13s. The frequency is reasonable for 5nm.
More analysis here:
Real World Technologies - Forums - Thread: Plausible A4 numbers
www.realworldtech.com
It should be noted though that A14 is just 4-core for the GPU, like A13 and A12, which means it’s got only half the number of GPU cores of A12Z. Yet, the compute scores of A14 and A12Z are about the same.Is it too high though? Metal score of A14 is about the same as A12Z (within a few percent).
Maybe they felt they needed to up their GPU game for the Arm Macs.