Apple A9X the new mobile SoC king

[raghu78]

Apple has created a true powerhouse for the iPad Pro. A9X (quad core) will beat Skylake Core M (dual core with HT) without a doubt in CPU performance. GPU performance comparison between the two remains to be seen.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9615/apple-announces-the-ipad-mini-4

"According to Apple A9X is 1.8x faster than A8X at CPU tasks, and 2x faster at GPU tasks. Given that A8X was already the fastest ARM SoC in a mobile device this is quite an accomplishment, and is likely the result of architectural improvements, higher clock speeds, and possibly the addition of a fourth CPU core. We'll have to wait until we get our hands on the iPad Pro before any of this can be confirmed though. Apple also noted that A9X is built on a new "transistor architecture" which means it's being fabricated on either Samsung's 14nm or TSMC's 16nm FinFet process."

Apple has gone all out with A9X and my guess is the A9X is > 150 sq mm. Skylake Core M die size is just below 100 sq mm.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis

Apple is challenging Intel to bring true quad cores to Core M. Will we see Intel bring true quad cores to Core M next year with Kaby lake or at 10nm with Cannonlake ? It would be great if Apple can bring simultaneous hyperthreading next year to their custom ARMv8 core . That would be awesome competition. A10X vs Kaby lake (4C,8T).

A multithreaded score of almost 8000 assuming Apple get close to 1.8x improvement over A8X in Geekbench 3 is mind boggling. For comparison Skylake Core M gets around 5800

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2637682

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=a8x

This is going to be interesting. iPad Pro is going to be faster than the latest Macbook Air (even with Skylake Core M). Is the Macbook Air going to be cannibalized by iPad Pro. I think yes. Apple gets to make better margins as A9X is their custom ARMv8 design fabbed at TSMC (most likely) while Core M is Intel's product.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/8/9275157/apple-macbook-air-pro-retina-redesign-phase-out

 

[Arachnotronic]

Apple is challenging Intel to bring true quad cores to Core M. Will we see Intel bring it to Core M next year with Kaby lake or at 10nm with Cannonlake ?

Won't see it with Kaby (see: https://benchlife.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/kaby-lake.png), but Cannonlake seems like a good candidate for a core count increase.

Apple has indeed gone all out and frankly, I think the performance numbers we will see will be very impressive.

The A9X seems purpose-built for the iPad Pro, and Apple seems to have done a great job. Kudos to them :thumbsup:

 

[Zodiark1593]

If indeed A9 can overtake Skylake, the x86 performance advantage at the upper end may very well erode away in due time such that not even desktop x86 is safe. It would be no surprise if Apple has an ARM desktop/iMac in the works.

To think how Apple has been pushing the bounds of SoC tech nearly year after year since the 3gs days. That said, I'm still not an Apple fan.

 

[raghu78]

If indeed A9 can overtake Skylake, the x86 performance advantage at the upper end may very well erode away in due time such that not even desktop x86 is safe. It would be no surprise if Apple has an ARM desktop/iMac in the works.

To think how Apple has been pushing the bounds of SoC tech nearly year after year since the 3gs days. That said, I'm still not an Apple fan.

A9X will spur Intel to provide more cores for the same price. Apple could finally force Intel to do what AMD failed to do. Apple could finally get Intel to provide more cores for the same price. We have seen 4C/8T core i7 CPUs from the days of Nehalem in late 2008 for USD 300 (core i7 920).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2658/3

Here we are in late 2015 and still Intel sells Skylake core i7 (4C/8T) for even higher prices of USD 340.

http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/4533#1

Similarly in notebooks Intel sells 2c/4T CPUs as Core i7 (15w) and Core M (4.5w). Apple could easily push Intel to add more cores. basically Apple will force Intel to lower its CPU margins as it will have to provide more silicon (sq mm).

Its pathetic that we see Intel get away with selling Skylake Core M (2c,4T) CPUs which have a 100 sq mm die size for USD 280-390.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Launches-Skylake-6th-Generation-Core-Processors

Apple will be providing a > 150 sq mm SoC which they are mostly getting for less than USD 50 from TSMC. A9X and Core M will power products which are in the same price range. Apple is going to force a serious cut into Intel Core M sales and future margins.

 

[IntelUser2000]

GPU performance comparison between the two remains to be seen.

GPU will be way faster too. HD 5300 in the Broadwell Core M gets 22.9 fps and 60.5 fps in Manhattan and T-Rex offscreen respectively. iPad Air 2's A8X gets 37.6 fps and 71.4 fps respectively.

Intel claims that in 3DMark Sky Diver, Skylake will be 40% faster. If that carries onto GFXBench, and assuming A9X is 2x A8X, A9X graphics will be 134% faster. That's 2.34x. I believe if that carries true everywhere that means Iris 540(15W, eDRAM 48EU) performance.

A multithreaded score of almost 8000 assuming Apple get close to 1.8x improvement over A8X in Geekbench 3 is mind boggling. For comparison Skylake Core M gets around 5800

Quad core 45W, mobile Sandy Bridge performance. A Quad core Haswell 4900MQ gets 13k while 4670K Desktop gets 13k too. 8K does quality as desktop performance.

 

[raghu78]

GPU will be way faster too. HD 5300 in the Broadwell Core M gets 22.9 fps and 60.5 fps in Manhattan and T-Rex offscreen respectively. iPad Air 2's A8X gets 37.6 fps and 71.4 fps respectively.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8666/the-apple-ipad-air-2-review/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9061/lenovo-yoga-3-pro-review/5

In Manhattan Offscreen ipad air 2 (A8X) with 32.1 fps is 15% faster than yoga 3 pro (Broadwell Core M) with 27.1 fps. But in 3D Mark 1.2 Unlimited Graphics A8X with 31781 is much slower than Core M with 59405. We do not know if the previous gen A8X was limited by memory bandwidth. A9X doubles memory bandwith over A8X. A9X ((Series 7 Imagination) also sports GPU architectural improvements over A8X (Series 6)

http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/09/apple-a9x-processor/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8706/imagination-announces-powervr-series7-gpus-series7xt-series7xe

Intel claims that in 3DMark Sky Diver, Skylake will be 40% faster. If that carries onto GFXBench, and assuming A9X is 2x A8X, A9X graphics will be 134% faster. That's 2.34x. I believe if that carries true everywhere that means Iris 540(15W, eDRAM 48EU) performance.

I would wait for reviews before concluding on GPU performance but I am very keen to see GPU benchmarks after the platform has been warmed up. I do think thats where Intel will suffer the most as their GPU architecture is not particularly efficient and suffers from serious throttling issues. Apple has been rapidly improving on sustained performance. Thats a major advantage starting from A8/A8X. A9/A9X should keep up that trend.

Quad core 45W, mobile Sandy Bridge performance. A Quad core Haswell 4900MQ gets 13k while 4670K Desktop gets 13k too. 8K does quality as desktop performance.

yeah A9X definitely brings desktop class power into your hands more so than even Core M. And thats telling quite a bit. :biggrin:

 

[IntelUser2000]

In Manhattan Offscreen ipad air 2 (A8X) with 32.1 fps is 15% faster than yoga 3 pro (Broadwell Core M) with 27.1 fps. But in 3D Mark 1.2 Unlimited Graphics A8X with 31781 is much slower than Core M with 59405.

Core M is way too bursty to make such a claim. 59405 is at a very high end of the score. Often, the devices got it in the mid 40k range. And Yoga 3 Pro had more problems than that. It was trying to "save power" so much that users reported laggy Youtube video playback! Of course the battery life figures showed that per WHr, the 15W chips were doing better so it was slow and chugged battery.

Regardless, Core M is going to be flat out beaten if that carries out through everywhere.

yeah A9X definitely brings desktop class power into your hands more so than even Core M. And thats telling quite a bit. :biggrin:

Of course performance is one thing. But Intel has a shield that's called "Windows". I don't think its a coincidence that Nvidia Denver, which would have had quite competent graphics in the X1 generation(sometimes beating out 15W HD 4400, but at 10W) did not work because Intel paid a piddly $1 billion to block them from using the x86 license. In certain investorshub posts some were adamant that Atoms being lost to ARM didn't matter since it didn't run x86 applications.

 

[cbn]

On the 4.5W Core M chips, how much TDP does the on package PCH contribute?

Or another way of phrasing the question:

For a 4.5W Core M SKU, What is the TDP of the processor die itself?

 

[NTMBK]

On the 4.5W Core M chips, how much TDP does the on package PCH contribute?

Or another way of phrasing the question:

For a 4.5W Core M SKU, What is the TDP of the processor die itself?

Kind of a trick question. It depends on how much work the PCH is doing. It's a shared 4.5W envelope, so if the PCH is barely doing anything and using 0.1W then the processor gets 4.4W.

And anyway, that's not TDP, that's SDP.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Kind of a trick question. It depends on how much work the PCH is doing. It's a shared 4.5W envelope, so if the PCH is barely doing anything and using 0.1W then the processor gets 4.4W.

And anyway, that's not TDP, that's SDP.

Still really sad that Intel didn't put the PCH onto the same silicon die as the Core M Skylake...

 

[cbn]

Still really sad that Intel didn't put the PCH onto the same silicon die as the Core M Skylake...

The pch on Skylake Core M is actually still separate, but now packaged very close to the processor die:

 

[ShintaiDK]

Kind of a trick question. It depends on how much work the PCH is doing. It's a shared 4.5W envelope, so if the PCH is barely doing anything and using 0.1W then the processor gets 4.4W.

And anyway, that's not TDP, that's SDP.

No, its TDP.

http://ark.intel.com/products/88199/Intel-Core-m7-6Y75-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

 

[ShintaiDK]

Since A9/A9X got 2xbandwidth and the speedup isnt specified. Then people should be really careful in where the performance comes from. It could also simply be vector instructions.

 

[Arachnotronic]

The pch on Skylake Core M is actually still separate, but now packaged very close to the processor die:

That's nice and all but there's still a power overhead that comes from needing to use a separate link to connect the two, and obviously the 22nm transistors that the PCH is made of are not as efficient as the 14nm ones that the main SoC is made of.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Core M also contains 10 PCIe lanes, SATA support, 3 display outputs etc.

 

[NTMBK]

Core M also contains 10 PCIe lanes, SATA support, 3 display outputs etc.

Yeah because that's super useful in a tablet.

 

[SPBHM]

very impressive, they are getting closer and closer to something that will be good for the macbook line

 

[asendra]

I think it hasn't been posted here.

The iPad Pro seems to have 4GB ram.
https://blogs.adobe.com/conversatio...ivity-apps-during-apple-ipad-pro-keynote.html

 

[raghu78]

Yeah because that's super useful in a tablet.

well said. 10 PCI-E lanes in a tablet SoC is stupid. Intel is stuck with its PC legacy thinking. Atleast eSATA I can find useful to connect a external portable hard disk. Same with HDMI.

Apple has impressed everyone with their aggressive performance pursuit. Over the last 3 years Apple has been amazing with A7, A8/A8X and A9/A9X. The rate at which Apple has added CPU and GPU power should put Intel to shame. I am sure iPad Pro with A9X and future SoCs like Apple A10X will light a fire up Intel's rear.

 

[ShintaiDK]

well said. 10 PCI-E lanes in a tablet SoC is stupid. Intel is stuck with its PC legacy thinking. Atleast eSATA I can find useful to connect a external portable hard disk. Same with HDMI.

Apple has impressed everyone with their aggressive performance pursuit. Over the last 3 years Apple has been amazing with A7, A8/A8X and A9/A9X. The rate at which Apple has added CPU and GPU power should put Intel to shame. I am sure iPad Pro with A9X and future SoCs like Apple A10X will light a fire up Intel's rear.

If we are to believe Apple, its also a console killer. Intel mobile CPU performance and AMD console GPU performance. All in a phone/tablet. Sounds too good to be true doesnt it?

 

[raghu78]

If we are to believe Apple, its also a console killer. Intel mobile CPU performance and AMD console GPU performance. All in a phone/tablet. Sounds too good to be true doesnt it?

Apple's A9X is definitely going to be better than PS3 class GPU. I don't think it can come anywhere close to PS4 class. Every company likes to market their product and some of them are just too aggressive. Anyway A9X is going to hammer Core M in performance and thats not going to go well with you. :biggrin:

 

[coercitiv]

Anyway A9X is going to hammer Core M in performance and thats not going to go well with you. :biggrin:

Let's take a snapshot here.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Apple's A9X is definitely going to be better than PS3 class GPU. I don't think it can come anywhere close to PS4 class. Every company likes to market their product and some of them are just too aggressive. Anyway A9X is going to hammer Core M in performance and thats not going to go well with you. :biggrin:

Bold statements again without benchmarks or anything else. Remember the 30-40% GPU share claim?

Its funny you only want to compare it to PS3. Yet CPU wise its a free run?

Either its close to PS4/Xbox One or its not close to Core M either.

If terms of CPU, you may see some memory bottlednecked benchmarks where A9/A9X does very well due to 2x bandwidth. But there is a world of difference between a computational one and memory limited.

 

[Snafuh]

Either its close to PS4/Xbox One or its not close to Core M either.

Close to Core M means a lot slower than Xbox One/PS4.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Close to Core M means a lot slower than Xbox One/PS4.

GPU vs CPU part.