News ARM Cortex X3/Cortex A715 announcement

soresu

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2014
1,832
994
136
ARM just announced their 2022 slate of CPU + GPU silicon IP yesterday, including the codenamed Makalu-ELP Cortex X3, Makalu Cortex A715 and a power optimised rehash of A510 (codenamed Klein).

It appears that a true successor for A510 codenamed Hayes is scheduled for 2023 to coincide with Hunter/Hunter-ELP big/bigger cores, and 2024 big cores codenamed Chaberton, all it seems in keeping with the mountain naming scheme.

There is also the obligatory new GPU IP Mali G715, and a new flagship GPU branding with Immortalis G715 - this flagship also has ray tracing on top of the Mali feature set.

Cortex X3 info link.

Cortex A715 info link.

Cortex A510 rehash info link.

Mali/Immortalis G715 info link.



 
Last edited:

DisEnchantment

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2017
1,241
3,734
136
Wow, I did not know ARM removed all the 32 bit stuffs on X2 and X3, good job

According to Chris Abernathy, the core’s chief architect. The process of eliminating 32-bit and optimizing for the 64-bit ISA exclusively has been a 2-step process. With the Cortex-X2, the underlying circuitry used for handling 32-bit architectural-related elements was removed, saving on transistors and simplifying some structures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaluan

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,698
8,563
136
No real update to the A510 until mid/late 2023? Well okay, I guess it won't hurt too bad but. Hmm. The performance delta between The biggest/big cores and little cores continues to grow.
 

soresu

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2014
1,832
994
136
No real update to the A510 until mid/late 2023? Well okay, I guess it won't hurt too bad but. Hmm. The performance delta between The biggest/big cores and little cores continues to grow.
Better than the ridiculously long time between little core updates A53 -> A55 -> A510 at least.

2 years is easily the shortest time in a long while for that - hopefully it's more impressive a change than A710 -> A715 and we get 15+% IPC and even better perf/watt increases.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,698
8,563
136
Better than the ridiculously long time between little core updates A53 -> A55 -> A510 at least.

2 years is easily the shortest time in a long while for that - hopefully it's more impressive a change than A710 -> A715 and we get 15+% IPC and even better perf/watt increases.
Okay, you have a point. A510 was pretty disappointing overall, and it took a long time to get there.
 

soresu

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2014
1,832
994
136
Found a proper 2024 roadmap graphic on PC World's website and altered it a bit for moar legibility....

arm_roadmap_2024c.jpg

Presumably Titan and Krake are the 2023 and 2024 GPU codenames respectively and Tower is a codename for ARM's next gen interconnect.

The linking of Hayes with 2 gens of big cores implies it should be matching them for the same v9-A ISA increment/feature set and likely breaking from the TCS21 and 22 gen CPU IP ISA.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
628
769
136
A510 with "up to 5% power reduction"... my god, how decadent Qualcomm is.
Their big core still can't catch up with Apple, and they came up with these SOCs using three different cores that it seems it's too much work for them to be able to properly update at the same time. The A715 is only 5% "performance uplift".
 

soresu

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2014
1,832
994
136
The A715 is only 5% "performance uplift".
Yeah overall this generation appear to be a wash.

The 6 wide upgrade in X2 -> X3 being the only notable feature of the whole lot CPU wise, and even that doesn't bring particularly notable performance benefits.

I'm still not sure who designed what here - for the moment I'm just going to hopefully assume that X3 and A715 are still Austin's work, because this is Sophia-Antipolis' worst output ever if it is theirs 😭

Here's hoping that Hunter and Hayes next year are more impressive.

So far the move to v9-A hasn't exactly been accompanied with great IPC improvements, though I suppose that the +30% IPC and 2x SIMD of v8-A's X1 was a hard act to follow.
 

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,323
632
136
So far the move to v9-A hasn't exactly been accompanied with great IPC improvements, though I suppose that the +30% IPC and 2x SIMD of v8-A's X1 was a hard act to follow.
Excuse my ignorance, but they achieved a 29% IPC increase from X1->X3 - are you complaining about the missing 1%? Do you know anyone else, who has achieved close to 30% IPC increase over the last 2 years? Certainly neither AMD, Intel or Apple.
 
Last edited:

soresu

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2014
1,832
994
136
Excuse my ignorance, but they achieved a 29% IPC increase from X1->X3 - are you complaining about the missing 1%?
That's the part that confuses me.

The wikichip article has a slide with only 11% IPC gain for X2 -> X3:



But the widely distributed PR slide has more than double that:



I'm sure that you can understand my confusion at the mixed signals they are giving off here 🤔
 

Kryohi

Junior Member
Nov 12, 2019
11
12
51
Excuse my ignorance, but they achieved a 29% IPC increase from X1->X3 - are you complaining about the missing 1%? Do you know anyone else, who has achieved close to 30% IPC increase over the last 2 years? Certainly neither AMD, Intel or Apple.
Nope, the ipc from X1 to X3 only increases by 22%.
In my opinion it's not that bad though, considering the X1 already had an ipc close to Zen 3.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and soresu

Lodix

Senior member
Jun 24, 2016
315
97
101
I think people are not considering very important points.

ARM updates their architecture yearly. I don't think over 10% IPC improvements every year can be considered bad.

This predictions of performance are at ISO PROCESSES.

When AMD or Intel publish their performance targets are combined with the new manufacturing in mind.

This improvements of performance come with an increase of efficiency. They can give better performance at ISO POWER and ISO PROCESS.

And 20% less power consumption at same performance in the same node in 1 year for mobile first IP is a huge improvement.

The projected performance at ISO PROCESS is over 20% combining IPC + frequency at similar power. For a 1 year refresh architecture.

This combined with the improvement in manufacturing that different vendors will choose will mean a very healthy improvement in just 1 year. Notably in efficiency for mobile SoCs next year. Samsung has just announced their production of 3nm with big power and performance improvements.

So if they meet their claims I am happy with what has been delivered for next year smartphones.

 

soresu

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2014
1,832
994
136
Nope, the ipc from X1 to X3 only increases by 22%.
In my opinion it's not that bad though, considering the X1 already had an ipc close to Zen 3.
Thanks for that, which article did you find that slide in - was it the wikichips or something else?

ARM have been infuriatingly scattershot with this PR, it seems all over the place.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
5,046
7,705
136
The wikichip article has a slide with only 11% IPC gain for X2 -> X3:

But the widely distributed PR slide has more than double that:
Trying to understand this as well and my interpretation is as follows:
  • IPC uplift is 11% with ISO numbers for the entire memory subsystem (L2, L3, memory latency and bw)
  • performance uplift is 25% when adding frequency increase for the core and also potentially better memory subsystem
The marketing slide is still extremely vague since I have to do all the work to pull the additional right numbers for the comaprison to make sense (expected X2 clocks for real silicon, difference in memory performance if any... etc)
 

soresu

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2014
1,832
994
136
ARM updates their architecture yearly. I don't think over 10% IPC improvements every year can be considered bad.
I'm really measuring against my frustrations at ARM steadily falling further and further behind Apple coupled with the extremely slow release of new cores on ARM SBCs😅

I love to root for the underdog, but there is a point where I just run out of woo and lapse into pessimism 😆
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,698
8,563
136
A510 with "up to 5% power reduction"... my god, how decadent Qualcomm is.
Their big core still can't catch up with Apple, and they came up with these SOCs using three different cores that it seems it's too much work for them to be able to properly update at the same time. The A715 is only 5% "performance uplift".
It's an ARM reference design, it's not exclusively Qualcomm's baby. Plus I expect Qualcomm to have their own Nuvia-enriched IP soon.

That being said, ARM Ltd. is being very conservative. They are clearly not trying to catch up to Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and coercitiv

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,323
632
136
I'm really measuring against my frustrations at ARM steadily falling further and further behind Apple coupled with the extremely slow release of new cores on ARM SBCs
That being said, ARM Ltd. is being very conservative. They are clearly not trying to catch up to Apple.
Not sure, what ARM is trying relative to Apple, as their design goals are different - however they are de-facto catching up to Apple, as ARMs IPC uplift has been greater than Apples over the last 2 years. Apple did not have anywhere close to 30% IPC uplift over the last 2 years.

I wonder what numbers you have, which would suggest otherwise?

ps. I am also frustrated about ARM SBCs - but as i mentioned in another thread, the SoC manufacturers for SBCs are partially still on TSMC 28nm.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,698
8,563
136
Apple did not have anywhere close to 30% IPC uplift over the last 2 years.
Depends on which core you're talking about. "small" cores? Definitely not, Apple is still improving those steadily. "Big" cores though? A78-A710-A715 isn't really a big deal, and nobody's using multiple X cores per chip (yet) so I'm not sure how to do a comparison there.
 

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,323
632
136
Depends on which core you're talking about. "small" cores? Definitely not, Apple is still improving those steadily. "Big" cores though? A78-A710-A715 isn't really a big deal, and nobody's using multiple X cores per chip (yet) so I'm not sure how to do a comparison there.
We compare the fastest cores if you are interested in "catch-up'. What the device manufacturers integrate is up to them - DSU-110 allows 8 X-cores. Also 8CX Gen 3 integrates 4 X cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Lodix

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,323
632
136
That's the part that confuses me.

But the widely distributed PR slide has more than double that:



I'm sure that you can understand my confusion at the mixed signals they are giving off here 🤔
That is consistent, when you read the fine-print. The 22% includes a 10% frequency uplift. Its +11% IPC and +10% frequency - they essentially compare devices clocked 10% higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaluan

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,698
8,563
136
We?

compare the fastest cores if you are interested in "catch-up'.
It's valid to examine the Medium and Small cores as well. The bulk of reference ARM device performance will still be determined by the Medium cores (A78/A710/A715). You could and should definitely compare those to Thunder->Firestorm->Avalanche.

What the device manufacturers integrate is up to them - DSU-110 allows 8 X-cores.
And yet . . .

Also 8CX Gen 3 integrates 4 X cores.
. . . the only manufacturer that seems interested in using more than one X-core per SoC is probably moving away from reference designs.
 

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,323
632
136
It's valid to examine the Medium and Small cores as well. The bulk of reference ARM device performance will still be determined by the Medium cores (A78/A710/A715). You could and should definitely compare those to Thunder->Firestorm->Avalanche.
Whatever you compare, the IPC gains of ARM are larger over the last 2 years, than Apples - in fact Apples IPC gains are single digit.
If the device manufacturers are doing reasonable decision with respect to choice of cores is another question. It could very well be, that for Phones going with 6 cores instead of 8 but using faster ones might be the better option.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY